Local Government

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.

Summary

C’s neighbour was granted planning permission for the construction of an outbuilding in their garden. C complained that the council’s handling of the planning application was unreasonable. C complained that their objections had not been set out in full in the Report of Handling and that the report did not include an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on C’s garden.

The build site was on sloping ground and C complained that the change in land height on the build site had not been mentioned. They also complained that the Report of Handling did not accurately summarise the scale of the proposed development or its proximity to C’s garden.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that although the Report of Handling did not include reference to the assessment of the impact of the proposed development on sunlight in C’s garden, the council had been able to demonstrate that this formed part of their assessment. We found that there was a reasonable consideration of the impact of the build on the existing house, the surrounding area, and the amenity of C’s property.

Although we were critical of aspects of the council’s handling of the application, we did not consider the shortcomings sufficient to lead to a finding that the handling was unreasonable. We found no evidence that any material considerations which might have led to the refusal of the application were overlooked. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint but we did provide feedback on matters the council could have dealt with better.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that the council failed to identify and respond to the key concerns raised by C. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to investigate their complaint to a reasonable standard. 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 .

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint handlers should identify the key aspects of complaints and ensure complaint responses address these matters, in line with the Model 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 about the council’s decision-making in relation to the allocation of Scottish Government Town Centre funding. In terms of the relevant governance arrangements, local Area Committees were expected to identify and rank eligible projects for the funding. C complained that their local Area Committee had failed to publicise the scheme, failed to invite applications and failed to discuss the funding in meetings. C complained that there was a lack of transparency in the council’s decision-making process.

With regard to the complaint about lack of community engagement, the council said that they were not operating a challenge fund. The council’s position was that the grant was allocated to projects in accordance with the governance arrangements agreed by the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee.

We found that the council failed to follow appropriate processes when making decisions regarding the allocation of Scottish Government Town Centre Funding. Specifically, we found that the council failed to evidence how they followed the agreed process that Area Committees become involved in identifying and recommending projects. There was no public record as to how the decision to recommend a particular project was reached and there was no evidence as to how this project was assessed as meeting the eligibility criteria. Taking all of the above into consideration, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to follow appropriate processes when making decisions regarding the allocation of Scottish Government Town Centre Funding. 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:

• Decision-making processes are followed, and the rationale for decision-making (including which projects to recommend for funding) is publicly available in the form of meeting agendas and minutes.

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's response to their reports of anti-social behaviour had been inadequate. C said that their neighbour was subject to an anti-social behaviour order which they had repeatedly breached.

The council provided C with a noise recording application which allowed them to record noise and disturbances and send these reports to the council. However, C complained that they were not provided with sufficient information on how to use the application and on what the council would accept as evidence of anti-social behaviour. The council rejected C’s submissions as evidence of significant noise problems and refused to let C submit additional recordings.

We found that the council had responded to C’s complaints of anti-social behaviour appropriately. Their response had been affected by delays in hearing court cases, but this was outwith the council’s control. It was also noted that actions taken by the council could not always be shared with C. We considered that C was provided with adequate guidance on using the noise recording application. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

C also complained that they were prevented from making further complaints by the council. We found no evidence that C was being prevented from making further complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour. The council stated explicitly as part of their submission to the investigation that if there was evidence of a material change in circumstances, then C would be allowed to complain about this. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

Summary

C complained about the service provided by the council's social work service in connection with their child (A), who resided with their other parent. C was unhappy with the way the council facilitated contact between them and A, as well as C's other children and A.

We took independent advice from a social worker. For the period of time we considered, we found that the social work service should have engaged with C more proactively in relation to contact with A. We did not find any issues with the way the council managed contact between A and their siblings. On balance, we upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to engage with them more proactively in relation to contact with 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:

• The social work service should engage and communicate with families effectively and in the best interests of the child.

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.

Please note the events this complaint refers to may have occurred some time ago due to a delay in publication. We publish our findings to share learning and inform improvement.