Local Government

Summary

C complained about the council’s Community Care Assessment (CCA) of their young adult child's (A) care and support needs. The CCA recommended that A continue to work with Social Work to meet the family’s desired outcome of A working towards independent living and becoming less reliant on their parents. C complained that the CCA did not take into account all of the information that they had submitted for consideration. In particular, they were concerned that the CCA failed to take account of the family’s home situation and allow for periods of respite for both A and their parents.

The council concluded that the CCA had taken account of, and referred to, all relevant information, including from other relevant council departments and outside organisations. The council were also of the view that the CCA had taken into consideration A’s outcomes, including time that would be neither spent by A at home nor with their parents.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the council’s decisions following the CCA regarding respite for A were reasonable, and that they reasonably took account of the family’s home situation.

We found that the CCA was completed following the principles of the relevant legislation and reached a reasonable conclusion. We found nothing to suggest that the council failed to take account of relevant information, or minimised any potential risks to A or others. We did not uphold C’s complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council failed to provide their grandchild (A) with reasonable support following an incident at primary school.

It is accepted by the council that the school should have held a second Child Protection Meeting (CPM). This was a clear oversight from the school, and it is not clear why this happened. This oversight led to C not being given feedback from the educational psychologist who had planned to feed back at the next CPM.

We found that the support offered to A was documented, evidence based and well thought out. An educational psychologist did not have any concerns about A, following their observation of them in class, that would have indicated further support measures were needed.

When C escalated their complaint with the council, we found that the council provided reasonable answers to the questions put to them in a reasonable timeframe. When it became clear that a CPM that had been cancelled had not been rescheduled, the council offered a further meeting which we consider was a reasonable remedy in the circumstances. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to carry out an adequate assessment of their parent (A)'s personal care needs and made an unreasonable decision that A did not meet the criteria for free personal care funding.

We found that the council's records did not evidence that thorough assessments of A's needs were carried out. There was no evidence that A's needs had changed, or that they no longer met the criteria for free personal care funding when the funding stopped. Although there was some evidence that A's needs were considered when the decision to stop funding was challenged, there was no evidence of an adequate assessment. Therefore we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to complete an adequate assessment of A's needs, for failing to work in partnership with A and their family and for stopping free personal care funding. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Provide financial redress for an amount equal to the payment of free personal care funding that A should have received between the dates specified in our decision notice.

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

• Assessments and reviews should be fully and accurately recorded within a reasonable timeframe.
• Funding decisions should be based on robust assessments that are completed and recorded in accordance with council procedures.

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 reports they made about their neighbours' antisocial behaviour. They reported a number of incidents to the Police and to the council's Antisocial Behaviour and Private Sector Services teams. Although C's reports were investigated, they were dissatisfied with the action that was taken by the council. C complained that the council failed on multiple occasions to respond to their contacts or took an unreasonable length of time to respond. C submitted a formal complaint to the council. Again, they considered that the council took an unreasonable length of time to respond to their concerns and inappropriately assigned an individual who was involved in the matters they complained about to conduct the investigation.

We found that although the council communicated clearly and regularly with C regarding their ongoing reports of antisocial behaviour, more could have been done to explain their assessment of the situation and the reasons why no formal action was being taken. We found that the council failed to follow their complaints handling procedure. There were delays in responding to C's complaint and it would have been better practice for the complaint to be investigated by someone with no involvement. On balance, 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.

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

• Staff should handle complaints in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure, ensuring that wherever possible the complaint is investigated by someone not involved in the complaint.
• The council should ensure that when customer contact is escalated to a formal complaint, it is dealt with under the complaints handling procedure.

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 failed to respond appropriately to concerns they raised about their child (A) who had cancer. C was separated from A's other parent (B) and, at the time A became ill, both C and B shared A's care on an equal basis and had Parental Responsibilities and Rights in relation to A. C was concerned about aspects of A's care and quality of life during their illness. C raised concerns that B repeatedly acted against medical advice, and acted aggressively and was abusive to C and C's partner while A was present. C complained about the way social workers and A's Named Person (a central point of contact if a child, young person or their parent(s) want information or advice) dealt with their concerns. C complained that during A's illness council staff acted unprofessionally and did not take their repeated requests for help seriously.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council should have more fully investigated the concerns C raised about A's welfare. In particular, they should have made contact with a relevant health professional involved in A's care to clarify whether they shared C's concerns. The council had a statutory duty to make enquiries in connection with A's welfare, to satisfy themselves that A was not at risk. We found that the council failed to meet their statutory obligations in this regard. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

C complained about the council's complaint handling. We recognised this was a difficult and complex complaint for the council to investigate, but we were critical of a number of aspects of the complaint handling. We recognised that the complaint investigation spanned some of the COVID-19-related lockdowns, when services were adversely impacted. However, we found that the council not only failed to meet the relevant timescales in accordance with their complaints handling procedure, they also failed to keep C updated regarding progress. We were critical of the complaint being passed back to the team manager to finalise the response when the senior manager investigating the complaint retired; the team manager was not sufficiently senior to deal with the complaint and they were cited in the complaint themselves. We also found that there was a lack of depth in the investigation. We considered the complaint handling was unreasonable and upheld this part of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified in our investigation. The apology should recognise the impact of these failings on C, C's wider family, and on A. 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:

• Council staff are clear about their obligations and act within the relevant statutory framework. Parents with parental responsibilities and rights are treated equally by council staff. In particular, where parents present differing accounts of significant events which cannot be reconciled, relevant independent third parties should be contacted for verification, both parents should be involved in planning for meetings such as TATC, the child's views should be sought in relation to matters affecting them.
• The council should consider putting in place a system for auditing records of child protection concerns reported to a school or noted by a school.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints are investigated in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure. Complainants are kept updated regularly. Complex stage 2 complaints are investigated by a senior manager. Complaints should not be investigated by staff cited within the complaint.

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 drainage assessment for a planning application. They said it only considered the likely impact of flooding on the planning site, with no Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) being undertaken to determine the potential off-site impact of excess drainage on the surrounding area, or downstream from the development site. C advised of there being a noticeable increase of water draining from the site and flooding on completion of the first of the three planned plots, and they complained about the longer term impact on the surrounding pathways including of a bridge which was C's only route of access to their home.

The council's response to C's complaint advised that there had been no known problem with flooding in the local area and that they had referred to SEPA flood maps to inform their decision on the level of assessment required for the application. As flooding was not a known problem in the area, there was no requirement to undertake an FRA for the planning application in keeping with the policies in place at the time. The council also advised any possible solution involving third party land would be a civil matter and not one which the council would pursue.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had reasonably considered the impact of excess drainage on the area surrounding the planning site in keeping with the guidance. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C complained about The City of Edinburgh Council’s administration of their council tax account. C complained that the council issued reminders for council tax arrears and threats of legal action when they had paid their council tax in accordance with a payment arrangement. C also complained that the council failed to respond to the their complaint in accordance with their Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP).

The council apologised for delay in responding to C’s complaint. They said that a council tax payment reminder had been sent to C as they had made a payment without using their reference number. This had meant that the payment hadn’t been allocated to C’s account.

C remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. C complained that the council had failed to respond to their correspondence and had failed to take the fact that they are a vulnerable person into account.

We found that the council had repeatedly failed to engage with C’s correspondence over a significant period of time. We found serious and repeated failures by the council to adhere to their CHP. We considered that the council acted without any consideration or accommodation of C’s vulnerability. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified in the administration of C’s council tax and in the handling of their complaint. 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:

• Enquiries about council tax payments, especially where the council is claiming no payment has been made and the customer is stating the contrary, should be dealt with and responded to promptly.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The necessary systems and procedures should be in place to ensure that complaints are handled in line with the council’s complaints policy and procedure and that all staff are aware of the complaints handling policy and procedure.

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 actions of South Lanarkshire Council in relation to work that they carried out to a property adjoining C’s home. The work related to the change of position of a gas boiler flue. C considered that this has had an adverse effect upon them and their property. The council did not identify any failings, but changed the orientation of the flue as a result of C’s concerns. C remained unhappy.

C complained that, as a result of the change in position, the flue discharged dangerous gasses into their home. C also complained that the council had failed to respond to their complaint in line with their published Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP).

We found that the council had acted reasonably regarding the change in position of the flue. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we found multiple failures by the council to adhere to their CHP. We upheld this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings, in particular, the unreasonable delays identified in the handling of their complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• The necessary systems and procedures should be in place to ensure that complaints are handled in line with the council’s complaints policy and procedure and that all staff are aware of the complaints handling policy and procedure.

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 Fife council's handling of a complaint that they made regarding an incident involving their child (A) at their school.

C said that A was a victim of sexual assault and harassment during a playground game in which another child forced A to kiss them, touched A inappropriately and encouraged other children to chase and catch A. C said that, as a result of this, A felt unsafe and was unable to return to the school.

C complained that the council’s staff failed to carry out a reasonable investigation, including that A’s teacher’s account of events was accepted without any further scrutiny.

We found that the council’s initial investigation of concerns raised verbally by C was reasonable and highlighted the school staff’s conclusion at that time that this had been a matter that could be dealt with in the classroom. When new information became available indicating that the events may have been more serious, the council left the investigation to the police. Following completion of the police’s investigation, the council issued their response to the complaint, which reflected the situation as they understood it.

However, C’s complaint clearly included mention of their concern that a few weeks before the specific incident complained of they had reported to the teacher that a similar incident had occurred. Due to the lack of records available of the council’s investigation it is unclear whether, or to what extent, that these concerns were taken into account or investigated. These concerns were not responded to by the council. It is unclear, therefore, whether the council reasonably considered the implications of the teacher having been aware of potentially inappropriate behaviour taking place among the children for a few weeks before the reports that led to action being taken. These implications may have included what weight the school and council gave to the teacher’s statements, whether evidence or corroboration should have been sought for when the teacher or other staff first became aware of the children’s actions in the playground, and whether the outcome of the investigations would have been the same. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for their failure to investigate and respond to C’s concern that they had reported to the teacher. 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:

• Complaints are properly investigated and responded to in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure for Local Authorities.

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 planning department with respect to a section 75 agreement (a contract that is entered into between a landowner and a planning authority). In particular, C complained that the council had failed to adhere to a clause of the section 75 agreement requiring them to adopt open space and woodland areas within, and bordering the housing development on which C lives. C noted that some of the land in question had now been sold to a property developer. C believed that the council’s inaction could result in development adversely affecting C and other residents’ properties and a failure to maintain the playpark and communal spaces. Additionally, C was dissatisfied with the council’s response to their complaint due to missed timescales, and the response having been issued by an officer closely involved in the matters complained about.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that many of the significant events related to this complaint were now historic. In particular, the fifth clause of the section 75 agreement required prior action be taken, adoption of the land by the council, before occupation of a number of homes in a phased development. However, a number of years previously the council had failed to monitor and discharge this condition allowing occupation. While in theory enforcement action remained a possibility at the council’s discretion, due to the passage of time the owner of the land likely now had deemed planning permission. On this basis, we upheld C’s complaints about these matters. We also upheld C’s complaint that the complaint had not been handled in line with the council’s complaints handling procedure.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing in their duty to ensure that all the conditions and schedules of the decision notice and the Section 75 Agreement were discharged. Apologise for failings in relation to enforcement action which due to the passage of time and failings outlined appeared to no longer be a reasonable option available to the council. Additionally, apologise for the failings in complaint handling. 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 as a condition of planning permission being granted, the council and the developer have entered into a Section 75 Agreement, the said Agreement and the conditions attached there too require to be monitored by the council to ensure that they are complied with and discharged. The council should therefore ensure that they have a systematic and robust system of monitoring in place.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council should ensure that they comply with the process and time limits set out in the complaint handling procedure. Where the council are unable to meet their time limits for responding to a complainant they should notify the complainant and explain the reasons why. The council should also ensure that their final response to a complaint signposts to this office in line with their complaints handling procedure.

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.