Local Government

Summary

C complained about the fitting of new windows to their property. C said there was wind, water, and noise ingress and the window units were not fitted correctly - specifically that they were not the correct size. When reporting this to the council, some workmen agreed with C’s position and others considered that there was no issue. C took photographs of holes around the windows before these were covered with MDF wood by the council. C told us that the council had not repaired the holes; instead they had packed the holes with insulation before providing new MDF surrounds.

Our initial view of the complaint indicated that the council had not appropriately investigated the issues C reported, and may have not appropriately resolved matters (i.e. by covering with MDF and using insulation). The council asked the manufacturer of the windows to inspect them. The manufacturer said that the window units were not faulty. The council then decided that nothing further could be done. Our initial assessment of the complaint identified that the council could not evidence the outcome of the manufacturer inspection. As such, we asked the council if they would be willing to arrange an independent inspection and report and take any follow-up actions identified to resolve the issues. The council initially declined this opportunity but later felt it would be appropriate for them to take this action.

Therefore, we closed the complaint as resolved as the council agreed to take the action requested. However, we have made clear if the issue is not resolved and/or C remains unhappy that they can come back to us and we may re-open the complaint and consider it further. We have asked the council to provide evidence of the action taken.

Summary

C was living in a residential unit for young people who are looked after by the council. C complained that the council failed to take appropriate action when they raised safeguarding concerns about the unit manager and failed to investigate a breach of confidentiality when C received abusive messages from a former member of staff. C also complained that the council had failed to keep them informed about decisions made about the future of the residential unit and their complaints had not been handled in accordance with the council’s complaints procedures.

We took independent advice from a children and families social worker. We were satisfied that C had been kept reasonably informed about the position of the future of the unit. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint. However, there were some failings in relation to communication and record-keeping in response to the safeguarding concerns raised. There were also failings in the investigation into abusive messages from a former member of staff and in the complaints handling. Therefore, we upheld these parts of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the specific failings identified in respect of the complaints. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• Safeguarding concerns should be communicated appropriately and in line with safeguarding guidance and clear and accurate records should be maintained.
• Staff in the unit should be aware of the issues regarding the use of social media highlighted by this case.
• The council should maintain clear and accurate records of discussions and meetings that take place, in line with required standards.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should comply with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure and council staff should be familiar with the complaints handling procedure. Complaint investigations should be clearly recorded at each stage and responses provided within 20 working days. If this is not possible, the complainant must be updated on the reason for the delay and provided with a revised timescale.

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

C is an advocate for and representative of A. C complained that a social worker acting on behalf of the council failed to timeously apply for state benefits on A’s behalf despite providing an undertaking to do so. C complained that this failure lead to a loss of income for A resulting in rent and council tax arrears and that the council subsequently sought direct deductions from A’s state benefits to pay for these council tax and rent arrears. C further complained that the council failed to adequately communicate with A and their representatives. Finally, C complained that the council failed to adequately investigate or respond to the complaint. The council did not consider that there was any failure to apply for and manage A’s state benefits.

Upon investigation, we found that there was an appointment of a social worker to undertake the application for state benefits on A's behalf. However, we found that there was a delay by the council in submitting an appointee application form. We found that A experienced an actual loss of income as a result. We also found that the council unreasonably sought direct deductions from A’s state benefits for council tax and rent arrears caused by these delays. We therefore upheld these aspects of the complaint.

Whilst we did not uphold the aspect of C’s complaint that the council failed to communicate adequately with A, we found that the council failed to adequately investigate and respond to their complaint. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for the delay in progressing A’s application for state benefits and for unreasonably seeking direct deductions from their state benefits to recover rent and council tax arrears. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Either; 1. calculate the amount of Universal Credit (considering each component allowance) and council tax reduction that A lost out on due to their delays and reimburse A for any shortfall of Universal Credit, rent and council tax reduction (taking into account of the discretionary housing payment already made). Or 2. agree a settlement payment with A through their representative C.

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

• Where the council undertakes to apply for benefits on behalf of an individual, this should be progressed promptly in order to ensure that entitlement to benefit is not lost. Deductions from benefits should not normally be sought when arrears have been caused by the council’s inaction.

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

C complained to the council about the way that their child’s school had responded to an incident of bullying in the playground. C also complained about the way this matter had been communicated to them as a parent of some of the children involved.

We found that the council had responded to the incident in keeping with their policies and procedures and we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint.

In relation to the school's communication with C about the incident, we found that there were inconsistencies within the councils own records about the point at which they became aware of C’s child being involved in the incident, and in relation to the school’s position on whether or not there was an area of the playground that was known to be difficult to supervise. Given the discrepancies within the council’s records, we upheld this part of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C that the complaint response about the playground incident was not supported by the evidence/ the school’s documentation of the incident. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should be accurate and supported by the evidence. Comments on complaints provided to the SPSO should be consistent with the documentation of the incident being investigated.
• Complaint responses should be accurate and supported by the evidence.

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

C complained about the way that the council handled the planning process and the building warrant process for a self-build project within an existing development of houses. Planning permission had been granted, and three years later only limited progress had been made and an application was made by the developer to place a static caravan on site, where they would live whilst completing the project. There were several applications relating to the caravan, and some years later an enforcement notice was served by the council. This was appealed by the developer. Two years later, the council served a completion notice on the site, and the case was appealed to the Planning & Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) by the developer.

C complained to the council. The Scottish Government reporter concluded planning permission had lapsed, because development had not lawfully commenced. The council took legal advice, which suggested that they reluctantly accept the reporter’s findings. The advice noted that should further evidence be submitted, then the council could take this into account if it supported a contrary position on the implementation of the initial planning permission.

C continued to correspond with the council, and brought a number of complaints to the SPSO. We took independent planning advice and we found that the council had the discretion to decide what enforcement action to pursue, if any. The council had followed the legal advice that they had received, serving a notice requiring submission of a new planning application. The developer had chosen to pursue an alternative course of action, by applying for a Certificate of Lawful Proposed Use or Development (CLPUD). This was not the same as being granted planning permission, but was an acceptable course of action by the developer. The decision of the Scottish Government reporter was only directly applicable to the completion notice, which could not be served. The council were entitled to determine whether they were satisfied the development had lawfully commenced. The advice stated that on balance, the council had acted reasonably. We found that whilst the council’s actions were not without criticism, they had exercised their lawful powers when reaching decisions on both planning and building standards matters. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council had failed to follow the correct procedures for issuing a building warrant to a neighbouring property. C had raised issues due to noise ingress to their property, which C attributed to alterations to the approved design for the neighbouring extension.

The council acknowledged that an amendment to the building warrant should have been sought and apologised for this. They noted that the original officer who dealt with the case had left the council, but a review of the works carried out had satisfied the council that the works complied with building standards and that had an amendment to the building warrant been sought, it would have been granted.

We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified building standards adviser. We found that the actions taken by the council were reasonable. The council were acting within their discretionary powers by determining that the building work carried out met the relevant standards. The council correctly identified that an amendment to the warrant should have been sought and had taken the appropriate steps to address this. Therefore, we have upheld this part of C's complaint but have made no further recommendations due to the appropriate action already taken.

Summary

C complained about the actions of the council in relation to repairs required at their home. They considered the communication, quality of repairs and time taken to carry out and fully resolve the repairs were unreasonable.

While it was noted that there were significant efforts made to seek to resolve the issues, and some delays were outwith the council’s control, overall, we considered the council failed to reasonably respond to repairs. While some repairs were completed in the target timescale, others were not, and for other repairs there was no record provided to indicate whether they were complete and no mechanism to escalate the situation where repeated attempts to repair the same fault were unsuccessful. As such we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to reasonably respond to C’s repair requests. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Ensure that the seven repair requests have now been completed.

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

• Have a system in place to ensure repairs information for each property is recorded in a way that is clear and accessible. Ideally this will also include a record of seeking verification from the tenant that they are also satisfied with the repair.
• Have a system in place to identify and respond to situations where multiple repairs have not resolved the issue.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Responses to complainants and the SPSO are thorough and complete, ideally in one response.

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

C complained about the council’s handling of allegations that their child made against them, including decisions taken to remove their child from the family home on the evening of the incident, but then considered safe to return the following day. C also complained about a lack of support for their family following the incident. C made a subsequent complaint about the council’s handling of disclosures made by their child to social workers regarding a previous overdose.

In response to the complaints, the council said that once a child protection issue was raised by C’s child, this was responded to quickly and in line with child protection procedures. Decisions about where C’s child should stay whilst police investigations were ongoing were taken in collaboration with the family and it was determined following a risk assessment that there was no grounds to require C’s child to stay away from the family home. The council explained the nature and purpose of follow up meetings.

With respect to disclosures made by C’s child that they had previously taken an overdose, the council said that the social worker’s professional opinion was that it was not necessary to pass this information on to the child’s parents, and instead recorded a note of the incident. The council did however acknowledge that there was no record of why the social worker had come to this determination and course of action.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that whenever information is provided concerning actual or alleged abuse, this must be investigated and we considered that actions taken by the council’s social worker to be reasonable in this regard. With respect to decision making around removing C’s child from the family home, whilst the circumstances are disputed, the records indicated that there were discussions with the family about the decision making in this regard and additional factors, including the lateness of the day, were taken into consideration. The approach in the circumstances was therefore considered to be reasonable.

With respect to C’s child returning to the family home the following day, we found that there was no immediate risk to C’s child should they stay at home and it was reasonable for them to return home the day following the incident. On this basis, we did not uphold C’s complaint about the appropriateness of the council’s Child Protection investigation.

In considering C’s concerns about the handling of their child's disclosure of a previous overdose, we acknowledged the council’s position that it may be appropriate in some circumstances not to share such information with a child’s parents, such as in circumstances where the child does not want the information shared. However, we found that there was no evidence of such a discussion having taken place, or of the reasoning behind decisions taken not to share this information with C or their partner. We therefore found that there was a failure by the social worker to record a discussion with C’s child and the reasons for not informing their parents of the overdose. On this basis, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and their partner for the issues highlighted. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• That the council share this decision with the social work team with a view to reminding them of the importance of recording all discussions and decision making considerations in child protection case notes.

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

C complained following the council's decision to decline C’s request for financial kinship care assistance in respect of their grandchild (A). C complained that the council failed to adequately consider their eligibility when there was a change of circumstances in the family home and they became the primary carer for A.

In responding to C’s complaint, the council upheld their original decision to decline C’s request for kinship allowance on the grounds that the decision for A to reside with C had been a private family arrangement and that they had not formally placed A in C’s care. The council did acknowledge that conflicting information was given to C regarding their eligibility for kinship allowance, that the provision of information regarding eligibility on the council’s website was lacking, and that the process for challenging the council’s decision on C’s application for kinship allowance was unclear. They agreed to take a number of improvement actions in response.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. In addition to the failings identified from the council's own complaint investigation, we found that when there was a reported change in circumstances in the family home, the council failed to carry out an assessment of A’s wellbeing or seek their views to determine whether they were a child at risk of being looked after (an eligible child). We found that when C made a request for kinship allowance, the council’s assessment was lacking in detail and reasoning, and failed to consider A’s wellbeing and seek their views. We found that the council’s position that C was not eligible for kinship allowance failed to adequately take into account the relevant legislation and national guidance or the changed circumstances in the family home. We also found that the council failed to provide a full and informed response to C’s complaint. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• The outcome of assessments for kinship care allowance should be appropriately completed and the rationale for decision-making, and specifically whether a child meets the relevant eligibility criteria, clearly documented and clarified as necessary.
• When there is a reported change in circumstances of a child, and/or an application for kinship care allowance is made to the council, or a kinship care order is granted following an application having been made, wellbeing and eligibility assessments should be undertaken in line with relevant legislation and national guidance in relation to kinship care assistance.
• Decisions to award kinship allowance should be based on a robust assessment of eligibility, which take into account a child’s wellbeing and views, circumstances/change of circumstances, and the relevant legislation and national guidance in relation to kinship care assistance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should be informed and accurate, and take account of any relevant legislation and national guidance.

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

C complained to the council about a local access route that was closed off by the landowner. C said that the route had historically been asserted as a right of way (RoW) and a planning condition imposed to protect it. In response, the council declined to take action to re-open the route. They explained that, notwithstanding the route being referred to a RoW in the planning process, the route had not been asserted and had no legal status. They explained that the planning condition (to provide an upgraded alternative route through the site) had also been removed on appeal. However, in a further response, the council stated that the condition remained valid but was found to be ultra vires and unenforceable as the alternative route was not in the landowner’s ownership. They declined to take any further action on the basis a suitable alternative route, in their ownership, had been provided and remained open.

C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable action to keep open the claimed RoW. C said that the council had been very clear in the planning process that the claimed route had been established as a RoW, and Scotways had also considered the route had met the criteria to be a RoW. They said that the council had also failed to take reasonable enforcement action in respect of the planning condition and had provided contradictory responses to their complaints about these matters.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had provided a reasonable explanation regarding the status of the route but highlighted that it would be for the courts to determine the status of a disputed RoW if C disagreed with the council’s position. We also found that the decision not to take any further action to keep the claimed route open was a discretionary matter which the council were entitled to take. For these reasons, we did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint.

However, we provided feedback to the council in respect of the original planning application. Specifically, we noted that the council had appeared to determine the application as including the diversion of a claimed RoW without confirming the status of that route. We reminded the council that, when dealing with planning applications which make reference to a RoW, to firstly confirm the actual status of such route and where required, to amend the application description if it is deemed that the route is not a RoW prior to making any determination.

Notwithstanding the unenforceability of the planning condition itself, we found that there had not been any failure by the council in respect of enforcement matters. We found that the council’s position that the planning condition had now been complied with as a suitable alternative route through the site had been provided, to be acceptable. For these reasons, we did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint.

We also found that the council failed to provide a clear and consist explanation in their response to C’s complaints and had incorrectly applied terminology and/or language. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint. We also reminded the council to ensure that where responses cannot be provided within the timescales set out in their Complaint Handling Procedure, they should write to a complainant to explain the reasons for the delay and provide a revised timescale for response, and that where they are unable to respond to a request for information from our office within the timescale specified, they should contact us as soon as possible and without delay.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Ensure that all relevant staff are reminded of the need to use the correct terminology when referring to matters in which the terminology has a particular meaning.

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.