Local Government

Summary

Mr C had an occupational therapy assessment which recommended changes to his bathroom, including a new shower. The council facilitated the appointment of a contractor to do the work, although the instruction and contract for the work was between Mr C and the contractor. The council gave a grant for part of the work. Once the work was complete, the council inspected the work and signed it off as complete. Mr C was unhappy with the quality of the workmanship. He had an architect inspect the work and his report indicated that the installation was dangerous. Mr C felt that the council were ignoring this report and complained that the council failed to properly ensure that the work done in his bathroom met his assessed need before signing it off as complete.

We investigated Mr C's complaint in relation to the council's role and obligations. We explained that we could not consider a complaint about the contractor and the quality of workmanship by them as, ultimately, he had instructed the contractor and the contract for work was between him and them.

In investigating the complaint, we reviewed the documentation and information provided by Mr C and the council. We also reviewed the council’s ‘Scheme of Assistance for Private Homeowners and Tenants of Private Landlords’ (the SoA) which sets out the process to the followed by the council. The SoA indicated that, when work was complete, an occupational therapy visit should take place to make sure that the adaptation meets the client's assessed needs. A final inspection by the private sector housing team should also take place. Generally speaking, we considered that the council had fulfilled these obligations. We noted that there was no evidence that Mr C had raised concerns that his assessed needs were not met at the final inspection and we considered that the council's responses to his subsequent concerns had been reasonable. For these reasons, we decided not to uphold his complaint.

We did have concerns that following their visit to Mr C, the occupational therapist did not record or inform the private sector housing team whether or not they were satisfied that the adaptation met the his assessed needs and, therefore, the council could not fully demonstrate compliance with the process set out in the SoA. We also felt that the council’s SoA and associated paperwork did not accurately reflect the council’s current handling of these cases and did not provide clear information about their limited role. We made recommendations as a result.

Recommendations

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

• To show compliance with the process set out in the Council’s Scheme of Assistance, following their visit, the occupational therapist should clearly record and inform the Private Sector Housing Team whether or not they are satisfied that the adaptations meets the client’s assessed needs.
• The council should review their SoA (specifically in sections 3.1.6 to 3.2.2) and associated paperwork and make sure that they accurately reflect the council’s current handling, as well as providing clear information about their limited role.

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

Mrs C made a complaint about the length of time it was taking the council to complete a rendering repair at her property. She was having a longstanding problem with parts of rendering coming away and she was of the view that the council were only completing temporary repairs.

The council confirmed that they had conducted repairs as required and that the larger repair of re-roughcasting was of a cost that meant a tendering process was required. This had caused the delays in the repair being carried out as the tendering process was extended beyond its original expected deadline.

We investigated the case and from the evidence provided by the council, it was determined that repairs for rendering and guttering was classed as planned repairs and did not have a definitive timeline for completion. We considered that the council had taken Mrs C's complaints seriously as they were putting the larger, re-rendering job out to tender as this was deemed appropriate to fully resolve the ongoing repair issues she had been experiencing. We noted that delays in the tendering process were acknowledged and that re-roughcasting was due to take place for the whole block within the next financial year. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council were unreasonable in their refusal to suspend their debt-collection proceedings to allow her to provide evidence of her entitlement to a single person's discount for her council tax. She also complained that the council unreasonably refused to refund the full amount of the fees that she incurred.

We did not uphold Mrs C's concerns about the debt collection proceedings because the evidence showed that the council acted in line with the requirements of the Local Government Finance Act (1992) and took reasonable steps to check whether or not Mrs C was entitled to the single-person discount.

We also found that the council acted reasonably in respect of their refusal to refund the fees incurred by Mrs C. The council acted in accordance with their legal responsibilities. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable action in response to reports of bullying of Mr C's daughter at her school. Mr C also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to his subsequent complaints.

We did not uphold Mr C's concerns about the actions taken concerning the bullying because the evidence showed that the actions taken by the school were in line with the steps set out in the council's policy.

We noted that the council failed to process Mr C's complaint in line with the requirements of their complaints procedure. The complaint was not acknowledged within the required timescale and the council failed to keep Mr C informed about an extension to the complaint investigation, although the actual investigation itself was carried out to a reasonable standard. For this reason, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably rejected his planning application on the basis of reasons which were outwith their jurisdiction. He said that as a result he had to appeal to the local review body, who granted consent, and that this process resulted in additional costs for him.

We found that the council rejected the application on grounds which did not appear to fall within the remit of the planning authority. The rejection focused on an element of the application which related to the marine environment and which was subject to licensing through Marine Scotland, rather than the planning authority. We noted that, where there was doubt about jurisdiction, this should be reflected in the planning officer's report and that this did not happen in this case. We also noted that no reference to the relevant Scottish Government planning circular was made in the officer's report and that the officer failed to fully explain their assessment of the proposals against the planning policy which was used to refuse the application. For these reasons, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• write to Mr C to apologise for their decision to refuse planning permission on grounds which fell outwith their jurisdiction; and
• reflect on their handling of Mr C's planning application and consider how best to ensure that officers are clear as to the implications of Circular 1/2015 and their responsibilities to justify decisions detailed in their reports in terms of all relevant planning policies.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to provide a clear and understandable explanation for the council tax changes on her account over a five-month period. She also complained that the council failed to adequately communicate with her following her contact with them over a ten-month period.

We found that while the council had, following our enquiries, been able to provide us with as clear and understandable an explanation as possible, they had not done so for Miss C. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaint.

We noted that the council had not provided either Miss C or us with an explanation for reassessing her council tax on one specific occasion. We also felt that, when it became apparent to the council that the information they were providing was not clear to Miss C, it would have been helpful for them to consider alternative means of communicating this information, for example through a face-to-face discussion. We made recommendations to address these issues.

In relation to Miss C's contact with the council, the council had already recognised that they had provided a poor level of service to Miss C and had apologised to her. We upheld Miss C's complaint. We identified three specific areas where the council's service had been poor and made recommendations accordingly.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Miss C with a clear explanation for reassessing her council tax;
• remind the relevant complaints handling staff to consider all means of resolving a complaint, including face-to-face discussion with the complainant;
• apologise to Miss C for failing to provide a clear and understandable explanation for changes to her council tax; and
• review the circumstances giving rise to the three service issues identified by the council and provide us with evidence that they have taken action to prevent a similar situation occurring in future.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council administered statutory notice works to a property he owned. The notice served by the council required work to be carried out to remedy various issues involving the roof and masonry. As these works were not carried out by residents, the council sent a further notice advising that they would arrange for the works to be carried out and informing residents of their right to appeal this decision. Following this, the council proceeded to appoint a contractor through competitive open tender. Once works commenced, further defects were identified and additional notices were served on residents in respect of these. Consequently, the cost of the project increased significantly compared to what was initially estimated.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to keep appropriate records of the tendering process and had failed to follow the correct tendering process for the works. We found evidence that the council held copies of four completed tender documents; a copy of a completed tender report, which detailed the basis for the council accepting the tender from one of the contractors; and a signed copy of the contractor's endorsement of the tender. We noted that the project had been tendered competitively and that the cheapest tender had been chosen by the council. We did not find evidence that the tendering process used by the council was inappropriate, or that the council did not hold appropriate records in relation to this. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C also raised concern that the council was unable to produce a formal final account and a full breakdown of the costs. Mr C also felt that some of the costs had not been appropriately verified as reasonable. We were critical that the council failed to ensure that they obtained a signed and itemised final account, and we noted that this was a requirement of the council's procedures. In light of this, we upheld this complaint. However, we found that the council had instructed a financial services firm to carry out an independent review of the project. This review concluded that the costs of the project were reasonable and recoverable. We assessed the evidence considered within the review and we were unable to conclude that the process of verification carried out was not reasonable.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a roof guarantee within a reasonable time. We found evidence of a significant delay in the council requesting a guarantee from the contractor following the completion of the project. Although we upheld this complaint, we noted that a guarantee was belatedly provided to the owners, and we were satisfied that this met the requirements of the council's procedures.

The council informed us that the department that had administered the statutory notice project was no longer operational and had been replaced by a new service with a customer service approach. In view of this, we were satisfied that no recommendations for learning were required in this case. However, we asked the council to apologise to Mr C for the shortcomings we had identified.

In the course of our investigation, we found evidence that some of Mr C's complaints had not been appropriately acknowledged and logged as complaints. We were also critical that the council had advised that no complaints had been received from Mr C's wife when the council had in fact issued a complaint response to her. In light of these findings we made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Mr C with a written apology for the shortcomings identified in this investigation; and
• feed back our findings regarding the handling of this complaint to relevant staff.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the allocation of costs regarding two statutory notices served on her property. Mrs C said that the allocation of costs between the two notices was arbitrary and that the costs should be reduced.

Before Mrs C complained to us, the council had instructed a consultant to carry out an investigation of complaints regarding statutory notices, which included complaints about the allocation of costs. This investigation recommended that the costs of one of the statutory notices should be reduced to zero as the notice had been incorrectly served. Mrs C agreed with this, but said that some of the costs of the statutory notice that was not reduced to zero should have been apportioned to the other notice.

We found that the investigation carried out by the independent consultant had reasonably considered the complaints about the allocation of costs between statutory notices. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the council's handling of an incident involving his daughter (Miss A) and another pupil, in which Miss A ended up with facial and eye injuries and was off school for a week. Mr C did not accept that what happened was an unintentional clash of heads and he was dissatisfied with the help and support his daughter was offered at school following the incident.

We found that the school took reasonable steps to find out what happened, by speaking to the staff involved, the other pupil, and to Mr C. It was clear that there were differing accounts of what had happened. The school did not formally interview Miss A, although they did put on record what she told a teacher immediately after the incident. By the time Miss A returned to school the matter had been referred to the police by Mr C and Miss A had been interviewed by them.

We found that the council took a careful approach after the matter was reported to the police and did not do anything which might jeopardise any ongoing investigation. The evidence showed that both Mr C and the council placed importance on the investigation by the police. There was evidence that Mr C told the council on more than one occasion that a decision or conclusion had been reached by the police. We found no evidence that such a decision or conclusion was ever conveyed to the council.

Mr C felt that the council did not take Miss A's account of the events into consideration fully. We found that the evidence did not show that Miss A's account was not believed, or that the other pupil's account was considered more reliable, but rather that a definitive account of events could not be substantiated because there were no witnesses.

Mr C was dissatisfied that the council failed to take into account medical evidence of Miss A's injury. We found that the council's position, which was that such evidence should be evaluated by the police, was not unreasonable. Council officers would not have been in a position to evaluate the significance of the medical evidence. In the circumstances we decided the kind of basic investigation carried out by the council, in terms of recording the accounts of the children, was the kind of investigation we would expect.

We did not find evidence that requests for help or support for Miss A on her return to school had been ignored or denied. We found that there were support measures in place to allow Miss A to discreetly alert the teacher if feeling anxious, or to exit the class if feeling threatened. Measures were also put in place for Miss A and the other pupil to be kept apart, both in the class and out of it. A process for Miss A to check in with a trusted teacher was arranged, and school staff were asked to be vigilant. There is evidence that Miss A was referred to the school nursing service after Mr C met with the council. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of the decision to change her son (child A)'s school class for the following academic year. Child A had been informed of his class before the school summer holidays. However, very shortly before the beginning of the school term, Mrs C was told that he would not be going into the class of which he had been previously informed.

Mrs C was unhappy with the way the council handled this decision. Specifically, she felt that they had failed to take into account the provisions of the Scottish Government's 'Getting it Right for Every Child' (GIRFEC) approach by not consulting with her, her husband or child A about the decision and that they had failed to provide her with details of the information on which the council's decision had been based.

Mrs C also felt that the council had failed to give a reasonable explanation for their decision, delayed unreasonably in informing her and child A about the decision, and failed to consider the effect the decision would have on child A.

As part of our investigation, we received further information from the council about the complaint. Although we could not provide Mrs C with the confidential information received which had led to the council's decision, we were satisfied that the council's explanation for reaching their decision was reasonable and was in line with their policy on the selection of pupils for classes.

We also considered the provisions of GIRFEC in relation to children, young people and their families understanding what is happening and having their wishes heard and understood. In this case, child A and his family were not adequately informed about what was happening and why, or given the opportunity to have their wishes heard and understood before the decision was reached. We thought that, had the council contacted child A and his family, this would have also prepared them for the possibility that child A may have to change classes, rather than this decision coming without warning so close to the beginning of term.

We also had concerns that, contrary to the joint working approach set out by GIRFEC, it did not appear that the school was involved in the discussions about the decision, which took place over the summer holiday period. We also concluded that there was an unreasonable delay between the decision being made and this being communicated to child A.

Given that the council did not keep Mrs C's family properly informed and involved and that there was an unreasonable delay in informing them of the decision, we considered that the council did not take appropriate action to limit the upset caused to child A.

Although it did not form part of Mrs C's complaint to us, we identified concerns with record-keeping at the school and the council. The council acknowledged that there was very little physical evidence in relation to this complaint. Our view was that it would be good practice for the school and council to keep a record of discussions where important matters which could have an impact on a child's well-being are discussed. In this case, it was difficult to establish exactly what had happened as there was no record of the relevant discussions within the school and the council.

In light of the above, we upheld Mrs C's complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• share the findings of this investigation with staff within the education department and remind them of the provisions of GIRFEC in relation to: children, young people and their families being kept informed about what is happening and why, and being listened to and having their wishes heard and understood; and the importance of joint working when making decisions which will impact on a child’s well-being;
• apologise to child A and his family for failing to keep them informed about what was happening and why and not giving them the opportunity to have their wishes heard and understood before the decision was reached, and for the delay in informing them of the decision;
• remind staff involved in this complaint (including the school) of the importance of recording discussions (including with parents, carers, children, young people and other staff) where important matters which could have an impact on a child’s well-being are discussed; and
• reflect more broadly on the failings identified in this investigation and take any necessary improvement action to prevent a similar situation occurring again, and inform us of any improvements.