Local Government

Summary

C, a support and advice worker, complained on behalf of their client (A). A is a kinship carer to two grandchildren (child B and child D). When child B was born, they stayed with their parent and A at the same address. The following year, child B’s parent left the house and child B remained in A’s care. There was social work involvement during this period, with a section 25 being signed and a noted intention to assess further and refer to the Children’s Reporter. Within a few months, A was granted a residency order conferring parental rights and responsibilities and the council closed the case.

Child D was born and lived with their parent for four years, until they were placed with A under a Compulsory Supervision Order. A received kinship care allowance for child D and also applied for kinship care allowance for child B. This was initially refused, but after A made a complaint to the SPSO, the application was reconsidered. The council backdated the kinship care allowance in respect of child B.

C complained that kinship care allowance was not backdated far enough for child B. The council responded that they had never considered child B to be a “looked after” child and therefore eligible for kinship care allowance. As such there was no reason to backdate further.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that due to lack of evidence and dispute between parties it was not possible to definitively determine the status of child B in earlier years. On application, the council paid kinship care allowance and backdated to the point at which child D had been placed with A under a Compulsory Supervision Order. We determined that the council had acted reasonably in this matter. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C applied for free school transport for their child (A) when A was about to begin secondary school. The council rejected this application on the grounds that A did not live within the catchment area of the secondary school they had been enrolled in. A had been enrolled at the school automatically and had not obtained a place by placing request (a request that is made when you are not in the school catchment area). C considered that A should have been provided with free school transport because A had not obtained a place at the school by placing request, and therefore the policy on privilege transport (to those who lived out of catchment) should not apply.

We found that the council's communication surrounding this issue could have been better. However, we considered that the policy on both free school transport and privilege transport had been reasonably applied. This was on the basis that regardless of how A came to be provided with a place at the school, the policy was clear regarding allocation of a transport place to those in a school catchment and those who were not. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council failed to obtain planning permission for the extension of a playpark. C said the development of the expanded playpark area required planning permission as it was a material change and was also a bad neighbour development.

We found that the council did not misinterpret law or policy and had proper regard for material considerations. Their decision not to take enforcement action in relation to a slide that required planning permission was also legitimate and took account of material considerations. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

However, we considered that it would have been helpful if the council's planning services had been involved at an earlier stage in the process and not only at the point that residents started raising concerns. This may have helped to identify issues in relation to the height of the slide at an earlier stage. We provided feedback to the council about this.

Summary

C complained that the council failed to undertake a proper assessment of them as a prospective adoptive parent for a foster child placed in their care (A). C also complained that the transition of A from foster care to their adoptive family was unreasonable.

The council said that it was decided that C would not be considered further as a prospective adoptive parent for A based on C's responses to enquiries made of them at the early screening stage and their circumstances at the time. C did not agree with the council's response and brought their complaint to the SPSO.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We noted that the council had acknowledged their failure to ensure sufficient visits with C had taken place. However, we found that the council's decision not to consider C further as an adoptive parent was reasonable and did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

In relation to the transition of A to their adoptive family, we found that this was reasonable and decisions were made with the best interests of A in mind. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their parent (A) about the council's investigation of incidents of anti-social behaviour from A's neighbour. C said the council failed to carry out a reasonable investigation which had an adverse effect on A's mental and physical health.

The council's initial response was very brief and simply stated that they had looked over the case notes and spoken with the staff involved. The council did not uphold C's complaint and C brought their complaint to this office. We sent the complaint back to the council and asked them to provide a more full response. The council's second response was more detailed, gave a chronology of events and summarised the action they took each time C, A (or their neighbour) reported an incident. However, it still only gave brief details of the actions taken by the council after each report and failed to evidence that this was in line with their anti-social behaviour policies.

After further enquiries the council provided evidence of the policy and procedure they followed. We found that there were a series of administrative errors on the part of the council and that council records contained inappropriate speculation about A's health and its possible impact on their complaint. Although these administrative failings undermined C's confidence in the council's actions, we found that the council did respond to the complaints of anti-social behaviour in line with their own procedures. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint but provided the council with feedback.

Summary

C complained that the social work service unreasonably failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of their grandchild (A)'s parents. They also complained about the level of support provided to the parents. In particular, C complained that there was too much focus on the past behaviours of the parents, and that social work had unreasonably planned for A to be adopted prior to their birth. C also said a social worker showing bias towards the parents, and that social work had interfered with a housing transfer application.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the assessment of the parents undertaken by social work had been reasonable, noting that the relevant guidance required for the past behaviours of parents to be considered as part of a wider comprehensive assessment to determine future risks to a child. We also found the plan to move A to the adoption register had occurred over a period of time, and we did not find evidence to support C's view that it had been planned prior to A's birth. We considered the overall level of support provided to the parents had been reasonable, including in relation to the housing transfer application. In relation to C's complaint about the social worker, we did not find evidence to support that a full investigation of this point had taken place, and we provided feedback to the council on this matter. Overall, we considered that the assessment and support provided to the parents by social work had been reasonable. We did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C’s child (A) was assaulted at school by other pupils. C complained that the council had failed to protect their child, failed to provide appropriate first aid and failed to provide a reasonable level of support to them following the incident. C also complained that the council failed to safeguard A from the bullying they subsequently experienced.

In their response to C’s complaint, the council provided details of the first aid provided and the steps taken to notify C’s spouse of what had happened. They said that the school had introduced a number of measures to help keep child A safe after the incident. The council initially said that C had refused to take part in restorative meetings, which they considered would have helped to resolve matters. After C complained about the council’s response, the council conceded that C had not been invited to a restorative meeting and apologised for this inaccurate information in their response.

We reviewed the council’s actions with reference to the relevant council policies. We considered that the assault had been taken seriously and acted upon swiftly. However, we found that although the council endeavoured to put in place a number of arrangements aimed at keeping A safe, these did not appear to have been fully implemented. We found that certain aspects of the council’s policies were not followed, that the council acknowledged that no restorative meetings took place and that counselling was not available to child A. We found that the council failed to ensure A was sufficiently supported after the incident and we also found shortcomings in the council’s complaints handling. We therefore upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and C’s family for the reliance on inaccurate information when reaching conclusions in the stage one response, with an acknowledgement of the impact this had on them. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Apologise to C for the issues highlighted in this decision notice. 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 consider creating a structured procedure and guidance for dealing with serious unacceptable behaviour and ensuring that the parties involved receive a full suite of support if required.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Information contained within complaint responses should be accurate. In terms of good practice, complaint responses should be person-centred and non-confrontational.

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 their council tax account. They had applied for a single person discount and a council tax reduction. C complained that the council failed to manage their account properly, did not communicate with them and issued warning notices for payment while the account was in dispute. C said that the council’s handling of their account amounted to discrimination.

We found that there were significant delays throughout the council’s assessment. However, we noted that this took place during the COVID-19 pandemic when services were disrupted. We found nothing to suggest the council were discriminating against C but considered that their communication was generally poor.

We were satisfied that C’s council tax reduction entitlement was assessed reasonably, but we considered more could have been done to obtain the relevant information for the purposes of assessing C’s application for single person discount. We upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the issues highlighted in this decision. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Invite C to provide evidence of the date that they moved into the property and reassess the start date for their single person discount accordingly. The council should confirm to C what type of evidence they would accept as proof of the date of entry.

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 that the council unreasonably assessed that a property was in a safe and lettable condition when they handed the tenancy over, that the council failed to make, or communicate, reasonable arrangements for carrying out repairs, and that the council failed to provide a reasonable response.

In respect to the aspect of the complaint that the council had unreasonably assessed that their property was in a lettable condition when the tenancy was allocated, we found that the capacity of the council’s systems to record safety and quality checks led to the council being unable to evidence that the property met the lettable standard at the time the tenancy was allocated. We therefore upheld this complaint.

C also complained that the council failed to make, or communicate, reasonable arrangements for carrying out repairs. We found that C was put to having to arrange repairs that could have been carried out before the property was let. We also found that the council did not communicate effectively with C when appointments were cancelled or had to be rearranged. We therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint.

C also complained that the council did not provide a reasonable response to their complaints. We found that the responses to the complaints did not address all of the concerns raised and failed to recognise the impact the issues had on C. We therefore also upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to ensure that repairs were carried out to the required standard prior to letting the property, for failing to check that the heating and smoke alarm systems were in full working order, for failing to make or communicate reasonable arrangements for appointments and for failing to provide a reasonable response to their 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:

• Where the council have informed a tenant that they will carry out repair work, officers should keep the tenant updated about any delays.
• The council should have effective systems in place to ensure the Lettable Standard is met and that records are well maintained and easily accessible. Tenants must have a satisfactory provision for heating their property.

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. Responses should address each point of the complaint, providing a clear explanation of what occured and describing action that will be taken where something has gone wrong. The information in responses should be supported by the evidence in the relevant records.
• Complaint responses should recognise the complainant’s experience and demonstrate empathy for their situation.

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 reported concerns to the council’s environmental services department about smoke pollution over a number of years as a result of their neighbour burning bonfires and a wood-burning stove. C was dissatisfied with the lack of action taken by the council and submitted a complaint. C considered that the council’s investigation of their concerns was insufficiently detailed, failed to take account of available evidence, and dismissed factors which C considered important. C also complained that the council’s response contained a number of inaccuracies.

We found that the council did not meet the timescales set out in their complaints procedure. However, the complaint was raised and investigated during the COVID-19 pandemic and C was advised from the outset that timescales were being affected. The council also apologised for this delay. We considered the overall time taken to have been understandable in the circumstances. However, we did note that the council failed to communicate to C that their complaint was being considered at stage 2 of the complaints procedure, despite initially advising that it would be reviewed at stage 1 and that C was not provided with updates when they asked.

It is also clear that there was ongoing communication between C and environmental services throughout the investigation period, correspondence sent and received via a councillor on C's behalf and Freedom of Information requests made. This all contributed to an overall confused chain of correspondence.

Generally, we were satisfied that C’s complaints were taken seriously and an investigation was carried out before the council’s response was issued. However, we found that the investigation sought mainly to respond to the complaint, rather than get to the root cause and attempt to resolve C’s dissatisfaction. The council’s response to C’s complaint reiterated their previously-stated position on whether they considered statutory nuisance had been witnessed. However, C’s complaint referred to the way that the officers had reached their decision, and the lack of objective measurement of the problem or use of official monitoring tools and the apparent disagreement as to which legislation was relevant. We considered that the council’s response should have explained matters such as why the smoke was not considered to be a statutory nuisance, what would be considered a statutory nuisance, why no equipment was deemed necessary to establish that no nuisance existed, and how the officers assess such situations.

We found no evidence that the council’s response to C’s complaint was inaccurate, or that a more detailed investigation would have altered the outcome in terms of the environmental services' assessment of C’s reports.

C also appears to have been given conflicting explanations as to why video evidence was not considered. However, this was clarified in response to our enquiries. We considered that this highlights the importance of collating a single clear explanation before responding to an individual’s enquiry.

Taking all the evidence into account, we found that the council did not reasonably respond to C's complaint. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to address some of the issues C raised, that their communication with C regarding the complaints procedure was poor and their general communication was confusing. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Write to C to provide a more comprehensive response to the outstanding issues we have identified in this decision.

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

• The council should consider how they could have better managed correspondence from C to ensure that, where individuals communicate through multiple channels or across multiple departments on the same issue, all points are responded to fully and consistently.

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.