Local Government

Summary

C’s child (A), was a pupil at a school in the council’s area. C said that A experienced bullying and a sexual assault by another pupil at the school, resulting in changes to A’s behaviour, anxiety and distress to the extent that A could no longer attend. Following discussions with the council, it was agreed that C could apply for A to attend a new school, outside of their local area.

C complained about school 1’s handling of A’s support needs and their response to A’s disclosure about the alleged sexual assault and events stemming from this. C also complained about the council’s failure to arrange transport for A to the new school, which C said had been discussed as part of the decision to apply for a place there.

C raised a number of complaints with the council regarding their concerns, including that the council had unreasonably contacted Police Scotland regarding the actions of C’s partner (B). C did not consider that the council responded reasonably to the points that they raised.

We accepted the council’s position that MAAP (Multi-agency assurance panel) meetings would not have been required over the relevant period. We also found that there was clear evidence of the school assessing A’s needs and putting in place reasonable measures to support them. We did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint.

Overall, we found that the school appropriately recorded A’s disclosure of sexual assault, instigated the involvement of relevant third parties to ensure that the matter was investigated properly, communicated and collaborated well with A and their family to arrange support for A and to explain why there were limitations to the action that they were able to take. Given the circumstances the school had to work with, we are satisfied that they proposed a range of supports that gave A options for safe places to go should they feel threatened. Whilst we acknowledge C’s view that these arrangements did not eliminate the risk to A, overall, we found that the school’s support plans were reasonable and appropriate. We did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint.

We found that the available evidence supported the council’s account of events related to the contacting of Police Scotland in connection with B’s actions and that the school’s actions on the day reflected the situation as it unfolded in a number of physical locations and involving different staff members being approached by different individuals with information. We did not uphold C’s complaint in this respect.

Whilst we have no cause to doubt C’s recollection of events, we found that there was no evidence to support C’s recollection that the council had agreed that door-to-door transport for A to the new school was required or would be provided. We are satisfied that the council considered A’s specific circumstances in reaching their decision on the request for transportation. We did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint.

Overall, we found that the council took C’s complaints seriously, conducted reasonable investigations, responded fully to the points C raised and that these responses were supported by the council’s policies and the contemporaneous records that they held. However, there was a clear and unreasonable delay to the council’s handling of one of C’s complaints, as the council had accepted and apologised for. Given the length of this delay, on balance, we upheld C’s complaint about the council’s complaints handling.

Summary

C complained that the council failed to provide support to them and their child (A), who had a severe and debilitating mental illness, and that the council unreasonably failed to respond to all of their concerns.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. In relation to the council’s failure to provide support to C and A, we found that there were unreasonable delays by the council at each stage of this case. We found that there appeared to be a lack of appropriate management oversight of the case, and a lack of follow up to ensure the best possible outcome for A was met. We also found that the overall communication with C was poor.

In relation to the council’s failure to respond to all of C’s concerns, we found that the actions which the allocated social worker said that they would undertake to progress the case had led C not to make a complaint. We found that the council’s complaint response lacked detail and clarity as to what went wrong and how this could have been avoided. In particular there should have been a clearer acknowledgement and explanation as to why their own guidelines on timescales were not adhered to. We also found that the council failed to fully acknowledge the impact on C, A and their family from those delays and that if the council considered it was not possible or appropriate to issue a joint response on behalf of the council and other partnership organisations, the reason(s) why should have been explained to C and C should have been signposted accordingly. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings in providing support to C and 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:

• Complaint responses should be informed and accurate. The council’s complaint handling monitoring and governance system should ensure that failings (and good practice) are identified and that learning from complaints is used to drive service development and improvement. The council should ensure that they carry out a robust investigation of a complaint when things go wrong. This should include examining the management and decision-making processes of a case to ensure that they have an understanding of all aspects of a case.
• Contact and referrals to social work services should be handled in a timely way and, where appropriate, allocated to a social worker without delay. Children and Young Persons’ assessments should be completed wherever possible in accordance with the timescales set out in the council’s policy. Where this timescale cannot be met, the reasons for this should be fully documented and there should be regular and proactive communication throughout the process.

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 the parent of two children, A and B, who complained about the council's handling of child protection concerns raised in respect of A and B. C is concerned that due to lack of proper procedure, decisions made by the Court in respect of contact between their ex-partner and the children were based on inaccurate information provided in social work reports.

The council's own investigation of the complaint identified that there was inadequate recording of the child protection concerns reported by C and that a welfare report compiled by the social worker was not of an acceptable standard.

We took independent advice from an experienced social work adviser. We found that there were failings to make a verbatim record of the child protection concerns raised by C, that the welfare report prepared for the Court was below an acceptable standard, and that there was a poor record of the interviews conducted with the children. Based on the evidence available, it was agreed that given that the children did not make a further disclosure to the social worker when interviewed, there were no grounds to pursue a child protection investigation. However, on balance, we concluded that, in light of the failings identified, there was a failure in the overall handling of the child protection concerns raised and as such, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

C also complained about the council's handling of their complaint. We found this to be reasonable and did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to conduct their enquiries in a clear and transparent way, failing to keep adequate records of their contacts with C, the child protection concerns reported by C, and of the interviews conducted with the children; and for the poor standard of the welfare report. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their client (A), who has looked after their grandchildren since the sudden death of the children's parent (B) but never received kinship care allowance.

A kinship care assessment commenced and the outcome was that A was not suitable to be approved as kinship carer. However, a Children's Hearing panel decided that both children should remain in the care of A (contrary to the recommendation of social work).

A couple of years later the children's other parent (D) died (and it was stated by C that D would not have been able to look after the children prior to that). After this, C states a regular payment was given to A, albeit less than the kinship care rate. C states that the children had previously had a social worker involved and A had worked with social work regarding the care of the children, and that they had asked A to look after them following their parents (B) death.

C considered that A was eligible for an allowance because the children are 'looked after' as they were cared for under a Section 25 arrangement Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and then a Compulsory Supervision Order. C refers to Regulations 36, 38 & 39 in The Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009. C was concerned about the length of time taken to commence a kinship care assessment and that this was not commenced at the point that the council asked C to look after the children. The council stated that there is a new kinship care assessment in progress.

Summary

C is a parent who lives with their partner (B). An allegation was made that C had used physical punishment to discipline their children and the children were removed from C and B's care. C complained that the children were removed without any evidence of wrongdoing on C's part.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the reason for the removal of the children was justified on the basis of the evidence available at the time.

However, we considered concerns about the apparent lack of investigation into allegations which were made about B, incomplete forms, and the decision to return the children to C and B's care in advance of the outcome of the case. For these reasons we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

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

• Staff should complete all relevant sections of paperwork. Staff should reflect on the outcome of this case.

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 had failed to handle their planning application correctly. C said that the council had failed to communicate appropriately with their agent, adversely affecting their application. C also said that the council had prevented the Local Review Body (LRB, deals with requests from applicants for a review of planning decisions) from considering correspondence submitted by their councillors in support of their application. They were also concerned about the way the council had responded to concerns about a conflict of interest. C said that the objector to their application was an immediate relative of a senior planning officer. They believed this had not been properly addressed by the council. C's final concern was that the LRB had not considered the correct plans, noting the decision issued by the LRB had referenced incorrect plans.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that although there was evidence of some delays in responding to C's agent, the standard of communication was reasonable. There was no evidence that the LRB were prevented from considering correspondence from C's councillors. However, the correspondence was not part of the original application and the LRB would have had to determine specifically that it was relevant in order to include it in their decision making. The council were also able to demonstrate that the LRB had access to all the relevant plans when reaching their decision. Therefore, we did not uphold these parts of C's complaint.

In relation to the conflict of interest, we found that there was no evidence the decision on C's application had been affected by a conflict of interest. However, the council had not kept adequate records of how the acknowledged conflict of interest had been identified and managed. We upheld this part of C's complaint and asked the council to apologise but made no further recommendations as the council were able to show they had already taken action to address this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the error identified 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.

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 of anti-social behaviour and their subsequent complaint about the way that these issues were handled. The council housed a number of vulnerable and high-risk tenants in the same block of flats as theirs. C complained that, over a period of seven years, the council tenants were involved in a number of incidences of anti-social behaviour, some involving serious criminal activity.

The council's investigation report concluded that the view they were failing in their duties under anti-social behaviour legislation may have been based on a lack of understanding of the priority for support rather than enforcement, the level of evidence required for enforcement, and a lack of clarity around activities and behaviours which sit within the scope of the relevant legislation. They did, however, recognise that their communication fell short of the level of consistency that is expected.

We were largely satisfied that the Family and Household Support team investigated C's reports of anti-social behaviour in line with the council's procedure.

However, in terms of the procedure there is a clear expectation that the nature of the complaint should be agreed at the outset, that updates should be given at agreed times, and that discussion should take place regarding what outcomes could realistically be achieved. We found no evidence of a structured approach to this communication. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

With regard to the complaint handling, we found the total length of time taken to respond to C's complaint was unreasonable. There was a significant delay to the response being issued, and we found no evidence of regular updates during this delay. Therefore, we upheld this part of 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:

• The council should review how communication with anti-social behaviour complainants follows a structured pathway as suggested by the antisocial behaviour procedure and that complainants are kept informed through to their complaint's conclusion whilst maintaining confidentiality for the other parties involved.
• The council should review how they communicate with anti-social behaviour complainants with a view to ensuring complainants are fully aware of how the anti-social behaviour procedure works and whether their concerns are being progressed through this, or another 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 cares for their spouse (A) who has Alzheimer's disease. C complained about the council's social work department, after they took action under their Adult Support and Protection (ASP) procedures, including obtaining a warrant to remove A from home. C complained that false allegations about them resulted in the warrant being issued and served. They complained that social work staff had presented unsubstantiated claims of neglect and abuse during the ASP proceedings.

We took independent social work advice. We noted that there was evidence that C was experiencing stress in their caring role and that there was a difficult relationship with social work. We noted that there were periods during which A was locked in the house alone and C had mentioned that A may have bruising on them and would not allow access for a GP to assess A at that moment in time. We found that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the council had a statutory duty to investigate the circumstances and put in place an action to safeguard A's welfare.

We found that the council followed the ASP process reasonably, seeking input from C and relevant professionals. A number of actions were agreed to ensure that both C and A had the support they needed in place and once it was established that the appropriate support was in place the ASP process was ended. We were also satisfied that it was reasonable for certain meetings to take place without C and A's involvement. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

C also complained about the council's communication in respect of these matters. We found that the council had attempted to communicate clearly and openly with C. We considered that the circumstances themselves and the stress and anxiety involved likely contributed to a breakdown in communication. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

Summary

C complained to the council about the way in which they had handled their reports about anti-social behaviour by C's neighbours. C also complained about how the council had managed the situation once C had been offered a housing transfer to remove them from the situation. The council investigated and responded to C's complaints, however C and their advocates continued to complain to the council about matters which were considered closed following the local complaint investigation.

We found that the steps taken by the council to resolve C's complaint were reasonable. On recognising C's vulnerabilities, and it being unlikely the dispute between the neighbours would be resolved, we found that the subsequent handling of C's housing transfer was also reasonable.

During our investigation it was noted that the council had invoked their Unacceptable Actions Policy in principle in relation to one of C's advocates. However, as they had indicated that they would not be contacting the council again, the advocate was not formally notified they were being managed in line with this policy. We gave feedback to the council on this matter, noting that complainants and their advocates should be informed when their behaviour is considered unhelpful and challenging to ensure that they have the opportunity to engage more meaningfully.

Overall, we found that the actions taken by the council were reasonable and we did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C is the parent of a child (A) who has conditions affecting their mobility and continence. C complained about how A's school was managing their personal care and how the council's disability social work department behaved towards C and A.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the Intimate Care Guidance in place at the time should have been updated and that having a written intimate care plan in place for A would have helped to ensure clarity regarding C's concerns about the management of A's personal care. We upheld C's complaint that the council's response to their concerns had not been reasonable.

We found that the disability social work team poorly handled arrangements to speak to A and did not give C enough notice of their intentions. While the council had accepted that they had used inappropriate language to describe C, we found that they had not fully acknowledged this and the impact that this may have had. We upheld C's complaint that the disability social work department failed to behave in a reasonable manner towards them and A.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for their behaviour in relation to arranging a meeting with the children, and their use of inappropriate language. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at HYPERLINK "http://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets" www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .

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

• The council should ensure that parents, in particular where they are the main carer, are given sufficient notice of social work's intentions to meet with children. The council should ensure that where inappropriate language may have been used, the impact of this is fully acknowledged.

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.