Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to the council about the treatment their child received from the head teacher and another teacher at their school. Their child has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and has additional support needs. Mr and Mrs C were concerned that this was not being properly taken into account by the school. The council investigated but concluded there was no evidence to support Mr and Mrs C's concerns about unfair treatment or bullying by staff. Mr and Mrs C said the investigation was not impartial and complained about how it had been carried out. The council did not respond to this complaint.

During our consideration of these complaints, the council wrote to us and acknowledged a number of issues with their original investigation and response to Mr and Mrs C's complaints. They identified five recommendations that they were taking forward as a result of their review of the case. The council also advised that Mr and Mrs C's later complaint about how the council's investigation was carried out had not been responded to appropriately. We considered that the failings identified in the council's investigation amounted to maladministration and we upheld both of Mr and Mrs C's complaints. We made a number of our own recommendations to address the issues identified.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue Mr and Mrs C with a written apology for the failings identified during our investigation;
• provide us with an update on the outcome of the five recommendations identified by the council following their own review of the investigation;
• carry out checks at the school to ensure that appropriate support strategy records are being maintained for pupils with ADHD; and
• make staff aware of the importance of their tone and use of language in case notes and correspondence.

Summary

Mr C had complained to the council about their handling of his request to have his home adapted. He was unhappy with their decision and asked for this to be reviewed by the complaints review committee (CRC). Mr C was dissatisfied with the way that the CRC considered his complaint and asked us to look at his concerns. Mr C complained that the CRC had failed to adequately consider the information provided and that there were unreasonable delays in the process.

After investigation, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the CRC had an extensive pack of information available to them and had heard the position of both sides. We also found that Mr C had agreed that the CRC should reach their decision on the basis of the evidence they had already heard and so we were not critical that they had reached their decision after considering the information available to them at that time.

While we did find that there had been a significant deviation from the statutory timescales for a CRC, we considered that the council had provided a reasonable explanation for this. Adaptations were made to the standard practice due to Mr C's condition, which meant that the case could not be heard over one or two days as normal. Availability of all parties, including Mr C, council staff and CRC panel members, then became a factor in reconvening the meeting. We were satisfied that the delays were reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case.

Summary

Mr C raised his concerns about the handling of his wedding by Leisure and Culture Dundee. In particular, Mr C complained that when he met with an officer he was provided with inaccurate information before booking his wedding and that he planned his wedding around this inaccurate information. As a result, he had had to reduce the number of guests attending the ceremony and cancel the live music he had booked and paid for. He was also unhappy with the handling of his complaint.

During our investigation we found no objective evidence that inaccurate information had been provided verbally to Mr C prior to booking his wedding. Arrangements for the wedding had been based on the information contained within the booking form. We were also satisfied that Leisure and Culture Dundee had taken action to ensure that in future there will be a record of information given to customers; customers will be provided with an information leaflet; there will be three members of staff available to meet with customers; and customers will be provided with a named officer.

However, we were concerned about aspects of the handling of Mr C's complaint at the second stage of Leisure and Culture Dundee's complaints procedure, and we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Leisure and Culture Dundee:

• apologise for their handling of Mr C's complaint; and
• ensure that staff adhere to the complaints process, in particular, in relation to extending timescales, updating complainants, and ensuring that complainants receive a full explanation for the decision reached on their complaint.

Summary

Mr C took over business premises and carried out alterations to sub-divide it into separate units which he hoped could be rated separately for non-domestic rates purposes. Mr C said that Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board did not communicate effectively with him about the valuations.

We found that although the valuation joint board had visited Mr C's business premises, there was no clear record of what had been discussed or agreed during that visit in terms of how the units would be treated from a valuation perspective, particularly concerning an interconnecting door between two of the units and a unit which had been further sub-divided into offices. Although the valuation joint board said they had explained to Mr C what was required before the units could be split we found a lack of evidence to support that position.

We found it had taken too long for the valuation joint board to separate one of the units, even after they had all the information they needed. They continued to contact Mr C by phone after he had asked twice for communication to be in writing or by email. We found it took too long for the valuation joint board to acknowledge an appeal and a complaint made by Mr C. We also found that an addressing error was not corrected in the timescale claimed by the valuation joint board.

Additionally we found the valuation joint board's response to Mr C's complaint failed to properly address a key issue that he had complained about, notably that their communication failed to address the points he had raised, which was unacceptable. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• carry out a review of record-keeping and communication, taking into account the issues identified with a view to making improvements and communicating changes to staff, and report back when the review is complete; and
• offer an apology for the communication failings identified.

Summary

When Mr and Mrs C decided to buy their housing association property they needed certificates from the council which showed their council tax payments were up to date. When they asked for the certificates the council said one could not be issued for Mrs C because she had council tax arrears. The council said the debt would need to be managed by their debt management partner.

We found that when Mr C first contacted the council they took around six weeks to deal with his enquiry, which was too long. The council provided inaccurate information to Mrs C by failing to include arrears from a previous address. The council also failed to pass the correct information to the debt management partner, which meant that Mrs C was only asked to pay a portion of the total amount outstanding. This caused a further delay. It was not until after Mr C complained that the council realised they had not notified Mr and Mrs C about arrears that Mrs C had at a previous address. All of this amounted to unreasonable confusion. The council explained that these things were the result of staff error.

We considered the council's handling of Mr and Mrs C's complaint. We found that the council had responded in time to the complaint. However the response failed to address Mr C's questions about how or why discrepancies had arisen in respect of the amounts owed, or what action had been taken as a result.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the multiple failings identified in the administration of the council tax debt and in the handling of the complaint; and
• provide a balanced account which sets out exactly what was owed in council tax, broken down by year, which accounts for all the amounts paid, any charges added, and any amounts written off.

Summary

Mr C, who is a landlord, asked the council to pay his tenant's housing benefit directly to himself. The council failed to do this and the tenant did not pass on the payment to Mr C.

The council explained that when Mr C requested the housing benefit be paid to him, the tenant had not yet been granted housing benefit. They made a note on the file. The council acknowledged they had failed to ensure the payment, when authorised, was paid to Mr C. For this reason we upheld the complaint.

We noted that the council had apologised for the error and spoken to the relevant staff about the matter. Therefore we did not make any recommendations about this.

As the investigation progressed, it became clear that the tenant had not been entitled to housing benefit. Therefore, even if payment had been made to the landlord correctly, the council would have been within their powers to pursue the landlord for the overpayment. It is for the landlord and not the council to pursue their tenant for any outstanding rent they are due.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the standard of work undertaken at their property by a company installing insulated cladding. The company had a contract with the council, who were coordinating this work under Scottish Government grant funding. The company were responsible for offering the insulation works to owner occupiers, and Mr and Mrs C signed a contract for them to deliver this work.

The council's role was to monitor the works as they were being undertaken, to ensure that they were of an appropriate standard, and to ensure that appropriate materials were used. This was to ensure that the final product fulfilled the criteria for a full warranty on the works. They also took on a role as intermediary in any dispute between the company and Mr and Mrs C.

Our investigation found that the council inspected the works as they progressed, and were satisfied with the work on site. Mr and Mrs C started to express dissatisfaction when the work was nearly completed. The council discussed these concerns with them and with the company. Over the period of a year they worked with both sides to try and find a satisfactory resolution to the issues raised, but Mr and Mrs C remained dissatisfied.

We found that the council had fulfilled their responsibilities in relation to the work being undertaken and we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint. We did however note that Mr and Mrs C's contract was with the company, so they could pursue the issue further with the company if they wished to do so.

Summary

Miss C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application; in particular, that the development had not been built in line with approved plans. Miss C was also concerned that she had not been notified about amended plans which had been submitted. She also complained that the council failed to include a screening condition within the planning decision notice, and about the council's handling of her representations.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. During our investigation we found that the council had responded to Miss C's concerns about the planning merits of the development and while there was a variation in relation to the height of the development, this was small and did not represent a material difference. As such, no further action was necessary. We found no evidence of fault in the handling of the planning application. While we also found no evidence of fault in arriving at the decision that there was no need for a screening condition, we were concerned that Miss C had been provided with conflicting information on this matter.

While we did not find that the council's responses to Miss C's representations were unreasonable, we found that they should have clarified at an earlier stage whether Miss C was raising a complaint in terms of their complaints handling procedure and should have provided information on progressing her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff of the requirements of the complaints handling procedure in relation to identifying complaints at the outset and providing relevant information on progressing a complaint;
• apologise for their handling of this matter; and
• review this case to see if any further lessons can be learned to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the council's application of their unacceptable actions policy (UAP). Mr A had been in contact with the council over a number of years about matters relating to the care of his child. Following concern about the nature and frequency of Mr A's contact with the council, they notified him that they had applied their UAP to manage his contact with them.

We found that the council had decided to implement their UAP after proper consideration had been given to Mr A's communication with their staff, so we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. There was a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the council had applied the UAP inconsistently or that they had acted unreasonably in not inviting either Ms C or Mr A to meetings regarding his child, so we also did not uphold these aspects of the complaint although we did make a recommendation about the council's procedures for arranging such meetings.

We upheld Ms C's complaint that there appeared to be an ad-hoc approach to the council reviewing Mr A's status under the UAP and lack of communication with him about this, although we were satisfied that they had since carried out a review, so we did not make any further recommendations about this. We also found that there were unreasonable delays in some of the council's responses to Mr A's complaint, so we upheld this aspect of the complaint too.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures to ensure that parents are notified of the dates of any forthcoming reviews regarding their children; and
• take steps to ensure that complainants' representatives are notified if UAP restrictions are to apply to their correspondence as well.

Summary

Miss C complained to the council after they refused to provide her with a bigger bin. She stated that the current provision was not sufficient for her needs as she had a large household. However, the council had carried out assessments of her waste and found material they said could have been recycled or disposed of in other ways. They stated that, had this taken place, she would have had sufficient capacity for her needs but Miss C disputed that the assessments had been accurate.

On investigation, we found that the council had photographic evidence to support their statements and, while this was not conclusive due to the nature of the assessments, there was no evidence available to suggest that they had acted incorrectly. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

However, we also identified that the council's second stage complaint response had been very brief and lacked sufficient detail to fully explain the reasons for their decision. As such, we made recommendations in relation to this failing.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C for the lack of detail provided in their complaint response; and
• reflect on this to ensure that relevant staff are aware of the level of detail required in a second stage response.