Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that his son was not receiving his entitlement of 600 hours a year of free nursery provision and that the council's handling of his complaint was unreasonable.

We found that the council had followed their policy correctly and that, although there was a small shortfall in the hours provided, they had made efforts to offer additional hours to make up the shortfall. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We found that there were some aspects of the complaints handling that could have been better, and we have drawn this to the council's attention. However, overall we considered that their complaints handling was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C reported missed recycling bin collections to the council. He said that he reported these to the council on more than one occasion, and that his case was closed with no subsequent collection of the bins. He raised a formal complaint and the council responded by apologising and advising that the recycling bins had since emptied and that the service had returned to schedule. Mr C said the bins had not been collected. He said that after he raised his complaint, a council employee came to his house and spoke to his mother-in-law, however they did not leave any contact details so Mr C could not follow up the visit properly. He said he received no communication from the council about when the bins would be collected. Mr C complained to us that the council unreasonably failed to collect his recycling bins, and that they failed to adequately investigate and respond to his complaints.

We found that, while the council had identified issues with bin collection in Mr C's area, they had not taken the necessary steps to ensure that bins were emptied as per their schedule. We found that the council failed on a number of occasions to empty Mr C's recycling bins and we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We found that the council did not provide Mr C with reasons for their failings and they did not provide him with a formal response at stage one of his complaint. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mr C with an apology and provide Mr C with a copy of the schedule for bin collections at his property.
• Monitor the area for a period of eight weeks to ensure bins are collected on schedule.
• Write to Mr C with a thorough explanation for their failings and advise him of the steps they have taken to address his complaints.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Take steps to ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any additional training needs.

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

Mr C complained to the council about missed bin collections and their failure to lock the gates to the bin area at his home. The council said that they had spoken to operatives to remind them of the importance of locking the gate. The council also said that they replaced the locks and offered to provide Mr C with a key for the lock so that he could lock the gates should he find them open again, though Mr C said he did not receive this key. The council also provided him with direct contact details for a supervisor and manager.

After the council closed the complaint, the problems started to happen again. Mr C said he would have to chase away young people who were congregating in the area to drink and smoke. He complained that he could not get in touch with the supervisor and manager on their phones, that they were not responding to his emails and that the council had failed to inform him that these members of staff were on long-term leave.

Mr C tried to raise his complaint again after the gates were left unlocked again and the council responded advising that they were treating it as a service request and that he had completed their complaints process. Mr C complained to us that the council's operatives unreasonably failed to close and lock the gate to the bin area. He also complained that the council failed to properly investigate and provide a reasonable response to his complaint.

We found some failings in the council's actions. It was evident that their investigation of the complaint and subsequent actions were not effective, as the problem continued to persist. We also found that the final response from the council to Mr C's complaint was inadequate. We upheld both aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Remind staff that the gate to the bin area at Mr C's home should be locked. Regular inspections should be carried out over a period of three months to ensure that this has taken place.
• Offer Mr C a key to allow him to lock the gate if he finds it open.
• Write to Mr C to apologise for failing to fully investigate his complaint and for failing to ensure that the gate was being locked.

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

• Wherever possible, phone messages and emails should be checked and out-of-office notifications and voicemail messages should changed advising when an employee is on leave.

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

Mr C reported missed collections of his recycling bins to the council on their web portal. He said that sometimes the problem was rectified within one week, however he felt that over time, reporting the missed collections did not seem to make a difference. Mr C raised a formal complaint with the council and the council responded by apologising and advising that all refuse had been uplifted from his property. They explained the problem was due to an operative error.

Mr C requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure. The council issued their final response and they explained that the depot had been in the process of reviewing their recycling routes and they anticipated that the issues would be resolved. Mr C contacted us and told us that the council had failed to collect the recycling bins at his property on at least seven occasions over the previous six months.

We found that the council had unreasonably failed to collect Mr C's bins over a protracted period of time and we found little evidence that the council took adequate steps to prevent this from happening. We also found that they had failed to properly investigate Mr C's complaints, as their responses to his complaints did not provide reasons for the missed bin collections. We upheld both of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mr C with an apology and provide him with a copy of the schedule for bin collections at his property.
• Monitor the area for a period of eight weeks to ensure that bins are collected on schedule.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Take steps to ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any additional training needs.

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

Mr C reported missed bin collections to Glasgow City Council and subsequently raised the issue as a formal complaint. In their final response to Mr C's complaint, the council apologised and advised that all refuse was collected as requested and that their collection crews had been reminded to ensure all waste is uplifted. When Mr C brought his complaint to us, he told us that the bins had not been collected, contrary to the council’s letter. Mr C reported further missed collections and the council responded advising they would pass this onto the local depot and that he had completed their complaints process. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to collect his bins and that they did not adequately investigate his complaints.

The council told us that they were experiencing a higher than normal level of requests and complaints at the time that Mr C raised his complaint. They also said they had to bring in additional workers who were unfamiliar with the routes. Despite the council investigating the complaint, we found that they continued to fail to collect Mr C's bins over a protracted period of time and failed to provide an explanation for this. We upheld both complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mr C with an apology and provide a copy of the schedule for bins collections.
• Monitor the area for a period of eight weeks and ensure the bins are collected on schedule.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Take steps to ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any additional training needs.

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

Mr C complained that contractors working on land opposite his home created a new site entrance and works compound, despite him have received assurance from the council during the planning process that the existing site access would be preserved. The council advised this on the basis that the planning application did not show plans for a new entrance. Revised plans showing the new access arrangements were then submitted, subsequent to this complaint, and the council deemed the new access permitted development, not requiring planning permission.

We took independent advice from an planning adviser, who found that the new access and compound were classified as permitted development. We, therefore, concluded that the council did not act unreasonably in allowing the contractors to take this action, and we did not uphold this aspect of complaint.

Mr C also complained about the way in which the council responded to his concerns. As he had received an assurance from the council that the existing access arrangements would be preserved, we considered that he was justified in raising concerns when this changed. However, the council initially advised him that the planning process could not consider matters of construction, which the planning adviser disagreed with. The council then noted that they had no obligation under the planning process to provide Mr C with an individual response to his representations. They did not explain to him that the deviation from the submitted plans was permissible under permitted development rights, despite confirming this to the applicant shortly thereafter. We considered that the council failed in their duty to respond reasonably to valid concerns raised by a member of the public and we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to respond reasonably to his concerns.

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

• Ensure that enquiries, such as those submitted by Mr C, are passed promptly to relevant members of staff to fully consider and respond to accurately and in sufficient detail.

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

Ms C moved to a new property through a mutual exchange. She complained to the council about repairs that were outstanding and the overall condition of the house. The council arranged for a building condition survey to be carried out, and it found that a number of significant structural repairs had to be carried out, including an internal wall which had to be rebuilt. Ms C had been told by the council, prior to moving in, that the wall would be rebuilt and that all outstanding repairs would be completed.

Ms C was also concerned that she was not given the opportunity to view the property before she accepted it. Ms C complained to us that the council unreasonably failed to follow correct policy and procedure regarding the mutual exchange, and that they failed to ensure the property was made available in an appropriate standard of repair. Ms C also complained that the council unreasonably delayed in carrying out the agreed repairs to the property in line with their policies.

In response to our investigation, the council told us that it was not standard procedure for a tenant to be offered the opportunity to view the property before a mutual exchange. However, they have since updated their policy to ensure that this happens. We found that even though the mutual exchange inspection by the housing officer confirmed that the property was in good condition, the property should not, in fact, have been approved for exchange. We also found that the council unreasonably delayed in completing the repairs for Ms C and that the council had acknowledged this. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for not making appropriate checks to ensure the property was up to standard and for the delay in completing repairs. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• The inspection policy for mutual exchanges should ensure that properties are properly inspected by a qualified officer and provided to tenants in a structurally sound condition.

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

Mr C complained about the way the council handled a complaint he had made. He said it had taken too long for the council to respond, and that they unreasonably failed to progress his complaint to the next stage even though he indicated he was still dissatisfied.

We found that although Mr C was clearly dissatisfied with the council’s response generally, his correspondence with them did not clearly state that he wanted to take his complaint to the next stage. We found that whilst he could have made this clearer, best practice would have been for the council to check this with him on receipt of his email.

We found that the council then missed further opportunities to check whether Mr C wanted to progress his complaint, as they should have done. Consequently, Mr C's complaint as not addressed in a timely fashion.

We upheld Mr C's complaint but decided, on balance, not to make any specific recommendation. However, we did ask the council, in conjunction with the senior manager or managers responsible for handling complaints, to identify any further learning and improvement in a proportionate way.

Summary

Mr C reported concerns to the council about out of control dogs and possible breaches of a dog control notice. He was dissatisfied with the council's actions in relation to the reports and continued to communicate with them. He said that a council officer responded inappropriately in an email to him, implicitly threatening legal action. He complained to the council about these matters and the council responded saying that they considered that their actions had been reasonable. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaints to us.

We found that the council failed to reasonably consider his reports or to give him reasonable advice or information about their consideration of his reports. We found that the response to the email was inappropriate. We found that the council's handling of Mr C's complaints was not reasonable as they did not follow their complaints handling procedure and made statements that led to confusion about their powers. We upheld all of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to reasonably investigate his reports and for the inappropriate content of an email they sent to Mr C. Further apologise for failing to reasonably handle or respond to Mr C's complaints. These apologies should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• In response to every report of out of control dogs or potential breaches of dog control notices, council staff should properly advise members of the public making such reports about:
• whether reports should be made to other authorities
• what kind of evidence the council requires to take action
• what investigations the council intend to take and the reasons for those
• the progress of such considerations or investigations
• the conclusions of such considerations or investigations and as much information as possible about what further action they intend to take.
• Council staff should be aware of the council’s expected standards of communication with members of the public.
• The council’s written statements should be clear and unambiguous.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be properly acknowledged, responded to, investigated and followed up on, in line with the council’s 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

Mr and Mrs C were living in temporary accommodation while they were on the council's housing list for permanent accommodation. When a first floor flat was offered, Mrs C contacted the council to discuss the offer. Mrs C's health condition had deteriorated and she had started to experience difficulty with climbing stairs. As this was new information to the council, they required Mrs C to provide further information about this from a medical professional. Mrs C complained that the council required her to provide a letter from her GP, which would cost her £25. Mrs C said she believed the council's policy states that they will obtain further information about a medical condition if it is required.

The council responded to the complaint and advised that Mrs C was not requested to specifically go to her GP, but to obtain information from a medical professional. The council contacted the GP to request a refund of the £25 but this was refused.

Mrs C also complained that the council did not keep her properly informed of what was happening next regarding the property offer. She told us she knew she was required to accept the first offer of housing made to her, yet she knew she could not accept the first offer as it was on the first floor. The council confirmed with Mr and Mrs C that the first floor property was no longer appropriate and they would remain on the housing list for a permanent property with ground floor accommodation.

Our investigation found the council's policy does clearly state that if they require further information from a medical professional, they would request this information. We could not establish whether Mrs C was in fact asked to specifically contact her GP, or to contact a medical professional. We upheld this complaint, however we could not recommend a refund of £25 due to not being able to establish what was said.

Our investigation also found the council did keep Mr and Mrs C informed of the next steps. The council wrote to Mr and Mrs C and confirmed the housing offer would be withdrawn because it was no longer suitable and they would remain on the housing list for more appropriate accommodation. We found the council's level of communication to be clear and reasonable. Therefore we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for not clearly explaining that they should request the information they required from a medical professional. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at: https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-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.