SPSO Individual Decisions

Mrs C complained about the support provided to her children (Child A and Child B) by their primary school. In particular, she considered that Child A did not receive enough support to cope with stressful situations. Mrs C considered that Child B was not appropriately monitored to see if they needed additional support. Mrs C also complained about the primary school's communication with her and other agencies about this, as well as about their record-keeping. In addition, she was dissatisfied with how her complaint was handled by the council. We found that the primary school followed the appropriate staged intervention process to identify and implement the children's additional support needs. We did not find evidence of the primary school's communication being unreasonable. Although we found some errors in the school's minutes of meetings Mrs C attended, we did not find evidence that their records were significantly inaccurate. We found that there was a delay in the council acknowledging Mrs C's complaint and that they should have condensed their requests for information from Mrs C into a more manageable format. However, overall we found that their complaints handling was reasonable. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. We considered that, given the concerns that Mrs C raised, the council should have informed her that she could request an assessment for a coordinated support plan and that they should have signposted her to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal, so we made a recommendation about this.

Mr C complained on behalf of an elderly relative (Mrs A) that the council unreasonably charged her for a replacement front door after she left her council tenancy, and about the council's response to his complaint. Mrs A changed the front door for one of her own preference several years ago. Upon leaving the tenancy, the council did a premises check. A year after leaving the tenancy, Mrs A was sent an invoice for a replacement front door stating that the door was damaged. Mr C queried this on Mrs A's behalf, stating that this was the first time they had been informed of any damage. Mrs A received a final demand for payment from a debt recovery agency working at the council's request. We found that the council had no evidence of the inspection carried out before Mrs A left her tenancy, to show that they noticed and recorded the door as needing replaced, and informed Mrs A of this. Since Mrs A was a council tenant for over 30 years, and because of her age and state of health, the responsibility should have been on the council to remind Mrs A, at the time of the inspection, of her obligation to replace the door. There was no evidence that the council did this, or that they gave Mrs A the chance to replace the door before they charged her. The council could also have used their discretion not to charge Mrs A for the door, given her age and health. The council did not properly explain their discretion to Mr C, and gave him and us contradictory and conflicting information about it. The council said that they considered their discretion in Mrs A's case, but provided no evidence of this. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. In relation to complaints handling, we found that a council officer did not make notes of phone calls with Mr C, and was unable to recall what was said when we asked. It was not clear which process the council used to deal with Mr C's complaint. In addition, we found that the council did not respond to key points of Mr C's complaint, and di

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to implement the recommendations of a social work complaints review committee (CRC). The CRC had been held and, despite a statutory timeframe of 42 days within which the recommendations should have been considered, the council did not consider the recommendations for six months. In terms of the complaints handling procedure in place at the time, the recommendations had to be reported for consideration by a council committee. The council's position was that this had been hampered by the intervening local elections and recess period, but we considered the delay to be unreasonable. We also considered that the council should have kept Mrs C updated with an explanation for the delay and advice as to likely timescales for implementing the recommendations. We upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Ms C complained about the council's management of a multi-use games area (MUGA) near her home. When the council provided Ms C with their formal response they said that they were unable to reach a conclusion on whether she and her neighbours were affected by anti-social behaviour from users of the games area. They also promised some specific actions as a result of their investigations. Ms C complained to us that a council employee had given details of her complaint to other members of the public. She also complained that the council's decision that they were unable to reach a conclusion about anti-social behaviour was unreasonable and that, almost a year after their response, the council had not undertaken the promised actions. We found that there was no clear evidence that the council employee had given details about the complaint to members of the public and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In response to our enquiries on their decision about anti-social behaviour, the council told us that there had been no indication of significant anti-social behaviour. We therefore concluded that it had been possible for them to reach a conclusion on that element of Ms C's complaints and we upheld her complaint about this. We found that, in their complaint response, the council had said they would engage a specialist acoustic counsultant to undertake a further noise assessment and look into possible solutions to the noise. They also said that they would arrange for ball catch netting to be installed at the MUGA. We found that they had not fulfilled these actions. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to ensure that her new bathroom was installed correctly as she had to report a number of leaks in the months following the installation. Ms C said that she had to report a leak on a number of occasions, and that the council and their contractor unreasonably delayed in establishing who was responsible for the leak, which led to her being left without adequate facilities for a lengthy period of time. Ms C also complained that the council delayed in completing the repairs. The council was unable to provide accurate records in response to our investigation. It was difficult to establish exactly what happened and the reasons for the delay. We found that Ms C was left to chase up both the contractor and the council to progress the repairs and we did not find this to be acceptable. In response to our investigation, the council explained that the bathroom installation was signed off as per their normal procedures and that the leak was not related to the installation as it was not reported until one month later. We accepted that the council did ensure the bathroom was installed correctly and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we found that the council did not provide an adequate explanation for what happened. There did not appear to be a coordinated response from the council and Ms C was left with a leaking toilet for an unacceptable period of time. The council failed to provide evidence of a thorough investigation into Ms C's complaint. We concluded that the council unreasonably delayed in establishing who was responsible for the leak and in completing the repairs. Therefore, we upheld these aspects of the complaint.

Ms C complained about matters at her school. Ms C's mother had complained to the council about a number of issues on Ms C's behalf, including alleged bullying and the way the council investigated this matter. Ms C's mother was unhappy with the council's response to her complaint and Ms C then complained to us. Ms C complained to us that the council failed to conduct their investigation of the complaint to a reasonable standard. We found that the council had taken the step of taking Ms C out of a class in which she had made allegations of racial discrimination against the teachers. We found that this was reasonable as, in taking this step, the council had regard for both Ms C and the teachers against whom the allegations were made. We found that the relevant people had been interviewed and that measures had been taken to try to resolve matters by way of offering mediation and counselling. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also complained that the council had failed to communicate appropriately with herself and her family in relation to her complaint. We found failings in the way the council had communicated with Ms C and her family. English is not Ms C's first language, or the first language of her family. We found that the council had, on some occasions when a translator was not available, allowed Ms C to translate for her family. However, we found that this is in breach of their policy on interpreting and translation. We found that the council could have considered other options when a translator was not available, such as using a phone translation service. We also considered that the council's communication in their stage two complaint response was poor. We found that they did not explain the steps taken to investigate the complaint in order to justify their decision. We also found that they should have been clearer about the steps they were taking to resolve matters. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Mr C complained about the way that the council dealt with repairs relating to a leak in the roof of his council tenancy. He told us that there had been considerable delays to complete the roof works required and that this had led to extensive damage to the plaster in one of his bedrooms. He said that the council told him that he would be responsible for the works internally and so he began carrying out the necessary repairs, stripping the plaster from the walls. Whilst this work was in progress, he told us that a council officer attended his property and told him to stop the works immediately. The council then completed the works and recharged Mr C for the cost, which he felt was unreasonable. We found that there had been a period of around six months from the date the repairs were first reported until the roof works were totally complete. However, the council initially carried out a minor repair within two days, which they believed had stopped the leak. We saw no evidence that Mr C had contacted the council to report that the leak persisted and they only became aware that further works were required three months after the initial repair, when visiting to investigate reports of unauthorised works. At this visit, they found that the plaster had been removed from two of the walls in the bedroom and the electrics had been damaged. We found that the council then instructed a report, which identified that fairly major masonry works were required, necessitating extensive scaffolding. They accepted that there was some degree of delay in completing these works, but explained that this was due to poor weather and a high demand for roofing contractors. On balance, we did not consider that there was an unreasonable delay, given the extent of the works required. We also considered that they were entitled to recharge Mr C for the works required to the bedroom, as there was no evidence that he had contacted them to request these repairs before carrying them out himself,

Mr C bought a second property with a view to renovating it and eventually moving into it. It took Mr C some time to bring the property up to habitable standards, and he moved into the property two and half years after buying it. When he moved in, he received a notification from the council about a council tax levy that was imposed on him from seven months earlier. Mr C complained to the council that they failed to inform him of this levy in writing at that time. He also believed the legislation from the Scottish Government gave local authorities flexibility and discretion when imposing the levy. We asked the council if the policy to impose a council tax levy on unoccupied properties was a blanket decision and whether they considered that they were not using their discretion when they could have been. The council confirmed that it was a blanket decision as they wanted to treat all home owners equally, and therefore it was not unreasonable to not consider Mr C's individual circumstances. Following our investigation, the council accepted that they failed to take the Scottish Government's 2015 guidance into account when they originally drafted their policy. However, we also found that the council were correct in how they interpreted the relevant regulations and that they had the discretion to impose the levy on all cases and not take into account individual circumstances. Our investigation found that the Scottish Government's 2015 guidance on the regulations was not accurate and conflicted with the regulations. As a result, the Scottish Government has agreed to amend the guidance. We did not uphold this complaint, however we recommended that the council review their policy for council tax levies for unoccupied dwellings. The council explained there was an administrative error when processing Mr C's account which explained why he did not receive notification of the council tax levy in writing. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to take the appropriate action in response to her reports of her neighbour's anti-social behaviour. We found that the council had investigated Ms C's complaints in line with their procedures. Whilst we noted that Ms C does not wish to continue living at her property, the council have not received any further reports of anti-social behaviour, therefore they cannot be required to take any enforcement action. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201700795 as a PDF (10.81 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C is a council tenant and complained to the council about their failure to respond appropriately to his reports of his neighbour's anti-social behaviour. Mr C had been reporting anti-social behaviour for a number of years and the council started to take formal proceedings against the neighbour, however they stopped the action at a point, as they said that they received no further reports of anti-social behaviour from Mr C. Mr C disputed this and received confirmation from Police Scotland of a number of reports that they had passed onto the council after the point when they had stopped the formal proceedings against the neighbour. Mr C complained that the council failed to inform him that they were no longer pursuing formal action against his neighbour. In response to our investigation, the council acknowledged that they failed to investigate Mr C's reports of anti-social behaviour. They also acknowledged that they should have informed Mr C that they were no longer pursuing formal action against his neighbour. The council confirmed that they were reviewing their anti-social behaviour procedures and they invited Mr C to a meeting so that they can apologise and discuss his concerns. We upheld Mr C's complaints and asked the council to provide evidence of the action they said they would take.

Mr C, who is an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A). A council operative was instructed to clear a number of garages and dispose of the contents. The council operative opened Mr A's garage in error, cleared it and disposed of the items within it. Mr A realised that this had happened two days later and contacted the council. Mr A complained and the council admitted the error and advised Mr A to submit a claim for compensation for the disposed of items. This was handled by the council's claims handlers. They offered Mr A less than he had claimed for, as he could not provide proof of exactly what was in the garage. Mr C complained to our office that the council had not taken reasonable precautions to ensure the correct garage was cleared and had not reasonably investigated his complaint. We found the council had not carried out a sufficient investigation into how the mistake had occurred and it was still not clear how it had happened. We also determined that the council's claims handlers had therefore not been provided with sufficient information about the incident. We upheld both aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a two-storey extension, which had been submitted by his next door neighbour. Neighbour notifications had not been sent out, and Mr C only found out about the application after planning permission had been granted. Mr C complained that a council case officer had failed to identify significant visual intrusion into his property from a balcony on the extension. The report of handling made no mention of the balcony, and the case officer had not retained any calculations on the file. The council provided new calculations, which they said confirmed that the proposal was acceptable. However, in view of shortcomings in the way the application was handled, they agreed to contact the developer to request that the height of a privacy screen at the end of the balcony next to Mr C's property was increased, which was agreed and approved. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. Although the council had drawn up new diagrams and calculations since Mr C complained to them, the adviser commented that their lack of detailed annotation was such that the adviser was unable to interpret them, so could not say whether the council's conclusion that the proposal was acceptable was reasonable. The adviser did not consider that the council had provided sufficient reason to justify the omission of the balcony from the report of handling, noting that the absence of the balcony was clearly significant in this case. Although the report of handling gave some consideration to visual intrusion from the extension into Mr C's property, we considered the council's failure to consider the impact of the balcony in the report to be an unacceptable oversight. We therefore upheld this complaint. Mr C also complained about the council's response to his complaint. He was dissatisfied that they had failed to address his concern about visual intrusion into his property through side windows, which had been omitted from

Mr C complained about a number of issues related to his son (Mr A)'s primary school. Mr A had special adjustments in place which Mr C felt had been disclosed inaccurately to other parents by teaching staff. Mr C was also dissatisfied with the way in which his complaint about the matter was handled by council staff. We found that the council had apologised to Mr C and his family for making inaccurate comments at a public meeting. We considered various possible factors raised by Mr C, but did not find evidence to clearly identify that any specific teacher or council officer had released confidential information about Mr A's special adjustments. However, we considered that certain remarks made to Mr C were not appropriate; that a council officer should not have notified elected members not to respond to Mr C's correspondence; and that the handling of Mr C's complaint regarding this matter was not adequate. We upheld these aspects and recommended that the council apologise to Mr C and share our findings with relevant staff.

Mr C complained that the council failed to process his high hedge application reasonably. Mr C applied for a high hedge notice under the High Hedge (Scotland) Act 2013. His application related to trees forming a hedge along his boundary with a neighbouring property. The council assessed the trees and advised Mr C that they would recommend reducing the hedge at a council committee meeting in approximately two months' time. In the interim, Mr C's neighbour carried out selective pruning. Subsequently, the council re-assessed the trees and decided that they did not have an adverse impact on Mr C's property. Therefore, they decided that no action was required. Mr C raised concerns about the measurements taken in the case, delays in the handling of the case, and the decision to re-assess the trees. The council acknowledged that there were some failings in the case, including in the accuracy of some measurements, and recognised that a delay had occurred. However, the council considered the re-assessment of the trees was necessary, and that there was no further action they could take to address the trees. After obtaining independent planning advice, we upheld Mr C's complaint. Regarding re-assessment of the trees, we considered it was not unreasonable for the council to re-assess. However, we did find that there was a delay in the council handling the case and that there were some inaccuracies in the measurements that were taken. On balance, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the failings in the handling of the case had largely been identified by the council and we found that they had subsequently taken remedial action. As such, we did not consider that further action from the council was necessary and we did not make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201507891 as a PDF (11.35 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C, who has multiple sclerosis (MS) and cognitive/mental health difficulties, said that the council failed to take these matters into account when dealing with her housing transfer. She said that as a consequence, she felt pressured and suffered a breakdown. She said she felt that she was camping in her new home which was unsuitable. She further complained that she was held responsible for repairs to her former home, which was unreasonable. In response to her complaint, the council said that they had acted in terms of Mrs C's request for single storey accommodation which was suitable for wheelchair access, but that in the 12 years of her being a council tenant prior to her visit to their offices, they had been unaware that she had any medical needs. It was at this time that Mrs C advised of her MS. However, she made no mention of other illnesses or problem for which she required support. Mrs C was subsequently allocated new, ground floor accommodation which she accepted, and shortly afterwards made an application for support mentioning her cognitive and memory problems. Two support staff were allocated to her and worked with her for over a year. They made over 60 visits and she was also helped with her rent. While Mrs C qualified for a removal grant, the council said that this was reduced to take into account repair costs required to put her former home into a lettable condition. We made further enquiries of the council and found that after Mrs C first advised the council of her request to move, she attended their offices ten months later to confirm her request. The application form she completed indicated that she had MS but no further need for support. It was only after she accepted the offer made to her that Mrs C revealed the extent of her illnesses and her associated needs. Support officers were allocated to help her for an extended period of time and there was no evidence that she had been put under pressure to accept the offer made to her or to

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.

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.

Mr C complained about the council on behalf of his son (Mr A) regarding the aborted sale of a council owned property. Mr C told us that the council had initially accepted his son's bid for a property they were looking to sell but, due to delays on the part of the council which led to the removal of the mortgage offer, the sale could not go ahead. Mr C was also unhappy that the council had insisted that Mr A pay for a refreshment of the home report, which was required by his lender. On investigation, we found that there was a period of around four months between the council's acceptance of Mr A's bid and agreement on the terms of sale. The first month of this was due to a change of solicitor required by Mr A's lender. The remaining time was spent in negotiation regarding the terms of the sale, as Mr A requested a change of the boundaries, and had concerns regarding the level of environmental liability that would be placed on him under the standards terms. Throughout these discussions, the council responded to each contact within two weeks, which we considered reasonable given the level of consideration required. With regards to the home report refreshment, this was only required on the insistence of Mr A's lender. Given this, we did not consider it unreasonable for the council to request that Mr A met the cost. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201608895 as a PDF (11.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C is a council tenant and she reported a number of incidents of her neighbour's anti-social behaviour to the council. Ms C complained that the council failed to address her complaints about her neighbour's anti-social behaviour within a reasonable timescale. The council advised Ms C they can only investigate the anti-social behaviour if they have corroborating evidence. Our investigation found that the council did investigate Ms C's complaints correctly. When Ms C raised further reported further incidents of anti-social behaviour the council obtained witness statements from other neighbours which corroborated Ms C's complaints. The council met with the neighbour and issued her with a written first warning. The neighbour subsequently moved out of her property. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201608278 as a PDF (10.91 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who is a council tenant, complained to the council about a number of issues regarding his new property. He complained that the council failed to ensure that his property was made available in an appropriate standard of repair and that they failed to follow their housing allocations policy. Mr C also complained that he was provided with incorrect information about his entitlement to a decoration grant and about his utilities contract. He also said that he was provided with wrong information about anti-social behaviour complaints from a previous tenant, dog fouling and the council's handling of his complaint. Mr C was dissatisfied with the response from the council. He felt that the council did not properly investigate his complaints and that they failed to offer remedies to his upheld complaints. Mr C brought his complaints to us. We found that the council failed to follow their housing allocation policy as they did not offer Mr C a 'settling in visit' after he moved into his new property and that they failed to ensure that Mr C had the opportunity to choose his own energy provider. We upheld these complaints and recommended the council provide Mr C with a written apology for these failings. We found that the council have already taken steps to ensure that tenants are better informed about their arrangements with their energy providers and we have asked the council to provide us with an update on their improvements. We found no failing in the council's actions regarding the standard of repair in Mr C's property and the decoration grant. We found that the council acted appropriately regarding Mr C's complaints about dog fouling and the information provided to him about the previous tenant's complaints of anti-social behaviour. We also found the council's handling of Mr C's complaint to be reasonable. We did not uphold these complaints.

Mr C complained about the council's response to a report from the police about his daughter (Miss A). Miss A had been involved in an incident following which she was charged with an offence. Shortly afterwards, Miss A and her mother both received letters from the council suggesting that Miss A may be referred to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA) if she had any further involvement with the police. The police later apologised for the way they handled the matter, dropped the charge and apologised to Miss A and her family. Mr C complained that the council's response had been unreasonable. He considered that the letter his daughter received had been threatening and inappropriate in the circumstances. Following our review of the council's policies and procedures we concluded that the council had acted correctly and accordingly we did not uphold this complaint. However, we did note that whilst we considered it to be correct for the council to highlight to Miss A the possible consequences of further involvement with the police, the council could have used a more empathetic tone in correspondence.

Mr C raised concerns about the way the council responded to his reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour's heating equipment. Part of this equipment was subject to a planning application, which was approved by the council's planning service following input from the council's environmental health department. This permission was subject to three conditions, two of which related to noise output and one of which related to the erection of a fence around the equipment. Mr C felt that the equipment was being operated in breach of all three conditions and that the noise from the equipment was a statutory nuisance. He was not satisfied with the way the council responded to these concerns and he complained to the council about this. In response to Mr C's complaint, the council said that these matters were jointly investigated by the planning service and the environmental health department. We took independent advice from a planning adviser and an environmental health adviser. The planning adviser noted that enforcement action was a discretionary power, and was satisfied that the council's planning department took reasonable steps to investigate whether there had been a breach in planning permission. However, they noted that one of the planning conditions could have been specified more precisely, which would have reduced the scope for misinterpretation. Although they did not consider that the condition was unenforceable, they noted that this was a learning point for the council. Although we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint, we made a recommendation in relation to this. During our investigation, we found an instance where a council officer made inappropriate comments about one party of the planning enforcement investigation. We did not consider that the officer had failed to act impartially, yet we felt the council should apologise to Mr C and take steps to remind officers of their responsibility to maintain appropriate communication. We also noted

Mr C, a council tenant, complained that he had been experiencing odours in his house for several years and he believed that these odours were coming from his next door neighbour's house. Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable steps to investigate and stop the odour ingress. During the investigation, we carefully reviewed all the information provided by Mr C and the council. We found that the council had carried out a number of investigations and repairs, including installing air quality monitoring equipment and using a smoke machine to determine where the odours were ingressing, sealing stair treads and skirting boards, replastering walls, and repairing the solum (the area underneath the floorboards). Whilst we found that the council had taken reasonable action to investigate the odours and make repairs to the house, we recommended that the council consider whether there was any further action they could take as a smoke bomb test had revealed some ingress from one house into another.

Mr C complained that the council failed to properly investigate his concerns that staff at the company he worked for, who provided services at a council homeless unit, were falsifying time sheets and claiming to be working when they were not. He also complained that staff were displaying confidential, and inappropriate, information about residents in public view on a notice board in the facility. We considered the available evidence and noted that the council had appointed an internal auditor who reviewed the evidence provided by Mr C to support his concerns, interviewed staff and reviewed documentation associated with the contract. The council also instructed a senior officer, who was responsible for data protection, to carry out an unannounced visit to the premises to inspect the notice boards. The evidence demonstrated that the council had taken Mr C's concerns seriously and carried out appropriate investigations in order to ensure that the company was complying with the terms of their contract with the council. They also investigated the data security and, after inspection, were satisfied that the information held on the notice boards was displayed in staff areas to which the public did not have access and that the information itself was appropriate given the nature of the facility and the needs of the residents. As the council could demonstrate that they had taken Mr C's complaints seriously, and carried out appropriate investigations, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201603051 as a PDF (11.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, a council tenant, complained about the time it took the council to deal with a problem she was having with pigeons on her balcony. Although we found the council's communication could have been better, we were satisfied that the works, which had been assessed as non-emergency, were carried out within a reasonable timescale. We therefore did no uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also told us there was a delay in progressing a claim she made for compensation. This delay had already been acknowledged by the council. Ms C also said that the council did not respond reasonably to points of complaint she raised by email. We found that there were shortcomings in the council's response and that some issues were not addressed either at all or as fully as possible. We therefore upheld these aspects of Ms C's complaint.