SPSO Individual Decisions

Mrs C's daughter (Ms B), was a looked after child subject to a Compulsory Supervision Order (CSO, a legal document that means that the local authority is responsible for looking after and helping the young person). Ms B had a child (Child A) and spent time living with family and in foster care. While in care, Ms B attended school and Child A attended nursery with financial help from the council. This accommodation did not work out and Ms B and Child A returned to live with Mrs C. This was in breach of the CSO but the council agreed to a temporary move. Ms B then enrolled at school in the area where Mrs C lived (a different council area). Mrs C sought permission to place Child A with her own childminder and expected the council to cover the costs as they had before. The council refused and Mrs C said that as a consequence she incurred a debt for which she held the council responsible. Ms B and Child A later moved out and returned to her previous council area where she was supported to live independently. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably refused to cover child-care costs while Ms B and Child A lived in the family home. We took independent advice from a social worker and found that there was no evidence of an agreement that the council would cover the child-care costs. Mrs C knowingly breached a CSO. Although there had been a looked after child (LAC) review to consider Ms B's circumstances, there was no record of what had been discussed. A note provided by a social worker appeared to show that child-care costs had not been discussed. However, once Ms B returned to the family home, there was an expectation that she would be supported by her family as this was one of the guiding principles of national legislation (that parents should normally be responsible for looking after their children). Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. However, we were critical of the fact that the council did not hold a minute of the LAC review and we made

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his clients (Mr and Mrs B) about the council's complaints handling process in relation to social work. Mr and Mrs B had made a funding application for a house extension to accommodate the needs of their disabled son (Mr A). This had been refused after occupational therapy reviews and the matter went to a complaints review committee (CRC). Mr C complained that the council unreasonably delayed in considering the recommendations of the CRC; failed to give reasonable justification for not accepting the recommendations of the CRC; and failed to consider a subsequent complaint in line with their obligations. In relation to the delay, the council said that this was due to staff absence, and therefore the report was not available to meet the deadline. We considered this explanation to be reasonable; however, the legislation states that if there are delays in considering CRC recommendations, this has to be agreed with the complainant. We found that the council had not agreed an extension to the deadline and therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. In relation to not accepting the recommendations, the council said that the committee had made the decision to disregard them based on a report by the social work department. However, they acknowledged that this was not published in the minutes in line with the relevant guidance. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. During our investigation, we found that the council had since introduced a new legislative procedure for social work complaints. Therefore, we made no recommendations in relation to Mr C's complaints. Finally, in considering how the council had handled a subsequent complaint of Mr C's, we found that the council had initially responded in a timely manner, apologising where appropriate and explaining their position. Therefore, we did not upold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201603463 as a PDF (11.41 KB) Upd

Mr C complained that the council failed to adopt definitive criteria for cleaning roads that have been fouled by farmers and farmworkers and their activities, and about the council's handling of his complaint. We found that the council were not required to adopt the definitive criteria Mr C wanted. The council already had in place a Road Inspection Guide, which was informed by relevant legislation and national standards, and provided a framework for the inspection of roads, including reactive safety inspections initiated by reports from the public. We also found that the council took Mr C's complaint seriously, made appropriate enquiries, came to a reasonable conclusion, and suggested a remedy for a failing that they identified. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. However, we found that council officers did not make records of inspections in response to Mr C's reports of mud on the road. It also appeared that the council may not have provided advice to their technical staff on how such situations would be managed across the council area, which they told Mr C that they would do. Therefore, we made a recommendation to address these points.

Mr and Mrs C own a hotel in a conservation area. They applied to the council for a grant to replace the windows on the front of the hotel, and were awarded the full grant. They required planning permission to replace the windows, but had problems getting through the registration process. Mr and Mrs C felt that the information they were submitting was adequate, and felt frustrated with what they considered to be the council's lack of clarity regarding the information required. In the meantime, the hotel building was deteriorating, which had an impact on their business and the health and safety of their family who were living there. The council's position was that Mr and Mrs C had continually submitted inadequate planning applications which were invalid. Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council's handling of their planning application was unreasonable. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We did not find any reasonable basis to question or challenge the council's reasoning and conclusions. We were satisfied that the council replied promptly, constructively and appropriately at all times. We considered that the council had made it clear what supporting documentation was required, and what essential items were missing, for the planning applications to be deemed valid for processing and determination. We found that the council were not in breach of any procedures or legislation, and did not cause any delays in the handling of the applications. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201701062 as a PDF (11.31 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Miss A) who felt that she had been financially disadvantaged by delays in the council completing a kinship carer assessment. Miss A was undergoing assessment to be a kinship carer but was looking after the children while the assessment was ongoing. Miss A received payments from the council but believed some of these were calculated incorrectly. Specifically, she felt that one-off payments made prior to the referral for kinship care being made should not have been included in the calculation of financial support. The council acknowledged that there had been delays in the completing of the kinship care assessment but did not feel that Miss A had been financially disadvantaged during the process. Miss A was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council was correct to include some of the one-off payments when calculating the financial support. However, we noted that the kinship assessment was delayed by a number of weeks. This meant that Miss A did not receive her kinship carer allowance as early as she would have if the assessment was completed on time. Therefore, we considered that Miss A had been financially disadvantaged due to the council's delay and upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mr C made a complaint about the delay by the council in processing a retrospective planning application for a wind turbine that was built near his home. Planning permission was granted to build three wind turbines near Mr C's home. The third and final of these wind turbines was built approximately two years after the first two but was larger than the others. Mr C raised concerns about this with the council and was unhappy with their response, namely not to take enforcement action and to allow the owner of the turbine to make a retrospective application for planning permission. Mr C was unhappy about the lack of action by the council to remedy this situation. The council explained that delays in the planning application occurred due to a combination of factors including staffing issues and delays in completing a noise survey. The completion of noise surveys was delayed for a number of reasons including inclement weather and the turbines requiring repairs. The decision was eventually taken to present the owner with the option to have the application determined and refused on the information available, or that they could withdraw the application and re-submit it in three months when the noise surveys could be correctly carried out. The owner withdrew the application and when the new application and noise surveys were not submitted as anticipated, the council began enforcement action. The owner complied with the enforcement action and arranged to have the turbine taken down. Mr C was unhappy with the council's response and the delays in this case and brought his complaint to us. We noted that when the council became aware of the planning breach, they responded within the appropriate timescale and requested further information from the owner's agent. However, there was then a delay of several months with no explanation before the decision was made that a retrospective planning application was required. We took the view that deadlines should have been imposed o

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201607681 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's decision to grant planning permission for an equestrian centre close to his home. In particular, he said that objections to the development were not properly considered and that it should have been treated as a 'bad neighbour' development (a development that could have a negative impact on neighbouring properties). Mr C also said that the siting of the proposed development was not in accordance with Local Development Plan (LDP) policies. However, the council maintained that none of this was the case and that the application had been considered reasonably and appropriately. We obtained independent planning advice and this showed that while all the objections made to the plans had not been reproduced in full in a committee report for the attention of councillors who were making the decision, it was not reasonable to do this. However, the report made it clear that the summaries produced should be read in conjunction with the full text which was available via a weblink. We further found that it was a matter of judgement for the planning authority whether or not a development constituted a 'bad neighbour' development having regard to the wider public interest. While the council took the view that it was not a 'bad neighbour' development, and did not advertise it as such, they had, nevertheless, advertised the proposals. Even if the council had considered the development to be a 'bad neighbour' development, the advert placed would have satisfied Scottish Government regulations. Finally, we found that the report associated with the application assessed the proposals against the LDP policies and while the application did not comply with all aspects of the LDP, the council had considered other relevant policies and material considerations which justified approval. The report had explained the reasons why such a conclusion was reached. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201607523 as a PDF (11.5 K

Miss C complained that staff had unreasonably carried out a hold on her son (Mr A) at his school. The council explained that the decision to carry out the hold was appropriate in terms of the staff's duty of care to keep Mr A safe, and had been carried out by appropriately trained and qualified staff. Miss C was also concerned that Mr A's leg had been hurt as a result of the hold. During our investigation we were satisfied that the evidence demonstrated this matter had been investigated. While the council explained they were unable to establish if Mr A had been hurt during the hold, they felt this was unlikely. We found no evidence that the council had failed to handle the incident in line with their de-escalation policy. We therefore did not uphold the complaint. However, we were concerned that a written statement had not been taken from Mr A after the incident. The views of Miss C and the staff involved had been obtained and while the council had explained why the views of Mr A had not been obtained, we considered that the council should have recorded their reasoning for not obtaining a statement.

Ms C complained to the council about the actions of their social work department. She was dissatisfied with their response and a Complaints Review Committee (CRC) was held. Ms C complained to us about the processes involved leading up to and including the CRC. In particular, she said that the terms of her complaint were not agreed with her in advance, further issues that were raised in advance of the CRC were not considered and her complaints about her dissatisfaction were not properly considered. We made further enquiries of the council and found that contrary to their procedure, Ms C's complaints had not been agreed with her in advance. While the further information she provided was considered, it had not been acknowledged and she had not been told that it would be heard by the CRC. This led to Ms C feeling that her case had not been properly heard. We, therefore, upheld Ms C's complaint.

Mrs C is the chair of the board of trustees for a charity and complained on behalf of the charity. The charity had applied for funding from the council's area committee discretionary fund, and their application was considered along with others. The grant application scoring panel had recommended an award to the charity. However, following a vote to award another organisation a sum of money, a decision was made to award the charity a sum less than had originally been recommended. The other organisation had been recommended for a nil award by the scoring panel, and had not met the minimum points in two key criteria to be eligible for funding, in terms of the scoring framework. The shortfall in the budget had been balanced by reducing the award recommended for the charity. All other applicants were awarded grants in line with the scoring panel's recommendations. We found that although the council's decision was discretionary, they ought to have provided a clear and robust rationale for deviating from the scoring panel's recommendations. The reason the council gave for their decision was vague, and called into question the entire scoring process. We upheld the complaint.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his complaint. He had initially contacted the council for information about the named person scheme for children and was unhappy with the response he received. He then wrote to the council to complain about this. He did not receive a response to this complaint and emailed the council again to complain that they had not followed their complaints handling procedure. The council sent him a response to his initial complaint on the same day. They said that this had been completed several weeks earlier, but had not been issued due to an administrative oversight. They also apologised for this. Mr C then wrote to the council to complain about the response. He said that it appeared to him that the council had simply backdated a letter and then pretended it had not been sent due to an administrative oversight. In response to this, the council wrote to him and said that they had progressed his complaint to stage 2 of their complaints process. Mr C subsequently phoned the council and said that he wanted his complaint about the delay in responding to his original complaint to be dealt with as a new complaint. The council then wrote to Mr C stating that it was their view that the points raised would be best considered under stage 2 of their complaints handling procedure and as part of their consideration of the other issues he had raised. We upheld Mr C's complaint due to the council's failure to send the original response to his complaint to him. We also found that the council should have been clearer to Mr C about how his subsequent complaints would be handled, although we found that it had been reasonable to deal with them under stage 2 of their complaints handling procedure. We were also satisfied that the council had apologised for these failings and had taken action to try to prevent similar problems from occurring. Related reading View Decision Report 201602498 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that in considering a planning application to extend the house next to his, the council failed to carry out what he considered to be a reasonable assessment of the privacy, daylight and amenity (enjoyment of property or surroundings) to his home. He said that the developer should have been required to submit plans which clearly showed the proximity and impact of the proposals on his home. He also felt that the application had not been assessed against the relevant planning policies. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that, while it may have been preferable for the drawings accompanying and supporting the application to have also shown neighbouring properties in outline, this was offset by the fact that council officers had made a site visit. We also found that, although Mr C said the council failed to follow their own guidance, there was no relevant guidance in place at the time. New guidance was in draft and was only published on the day that planning permission was formally granted. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201502101 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C's son (Mr A) went to a school that was not in the council's area. Mr A attended the school seven days a week, coming home only at the end of term. Mrs C wanted the council to pay for transport costs for visits during term time. The council would only pay costs to take Mr A to school at the start of term, and return him home at the end of term. Mrs C complained to us that it was unreasonable of the council to pay only these transport costs, that the council did not include her or Mr A when making the decision, and that the council failed to keep records about the decision. Mrs C was also unhappy with the council's response to her complaint. It is clear that the situation was very difficult for Mr A and Mrs C. However, we had to explain to Mrs C that complaining to us was not a route to appeal the council's decision. Instead, our role was to determine whether the council acted in line with relevant policy and procedure. We looked at the council's policy and found that they had discretion to pay costs they determined were appropriate. Although Mrs C disagreed with the council's decision, there was no evidence that they had acted outwith their policy. We considered that the council's communication with Mrs C could have been better. However, there was no requirement for the council to include Mrs C and Mr A in the decision-making process. We also found that the council had investigated Mrs C's complaint thoroughly and provided a reasonable response. We did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint. The council were aware that, other than letters to Mrs C about their decision on transport costs, there were no records. The council acknowledged that it was best practice to keep records, and they were looking into how they could do this from now on. We concluded that it was good practice to keep records, for example, making even a brief file note of important conversations which relate to the decision-making process. This would ensure there was an au

Mr C complained about the council's handling of several concerns he brought to their attention in relation to health and safety at a caravan site. In particular, Mr C was concerned that he contacted the council about health and safety concerns about an unfenced bridge on the site but several months later the bridge was still unfenced, and the council did not tell him that they did not consider this to be a health and safety issue (as they are required to do under their policy, if they decide not to investigate a reported issue). Mr C also said that statements by the council that signs on the site had been updated and that raised manhole covers had been addressed were incorrect. Mr C said that, although some signs had now been updated, this was not done at the time the council said it was. In relation to the manhole covers, Mr C said there were a number of manhole covers which were raised above ground level, which he considered to be a tripping risk (and he provided some photographs of these). The council said they had inspected the unfenced bridge and raised this with the site owners, but did not intend to take any further formal action (as there was no significant health and safety breach). The council also said that signs on the site had been updated, and provided photographs of these. In relation to the raised manholes, the council explained that this was a misunderstanding. Their previous statements that the manholes had been fixed referred to concerns that the manholes had inadequate covers, and that there was a risk of vermin or small children accessing the manhole. The council said they were now satisfied that this had been addressed, and provided photographs of the work. In relation to Mr C's concerns about the raised manholes constituting a tripping risk, the council said they did not share these concerns and did not consider this to be a health and safety risk. After investigating these issues, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council

Mr C was a planning applicant who had his application refused. Mr C complained about what he felt to be inexplicable and unjustifiable inconsistencies in the council's approach to planning policy. He was concerned that the council had taken a different approach to determining the planning application for the development, compared with their processing of other planning applications that he regarded to be very similar and within the same local plan area. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our adviser was satisfied that the council demonstrated that they dealt properly with their assessment and determination of this particular planning application, in terms of procedure and in full accordance with their statutory duties and obligations. In the absence of evidence of administrative failure, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201404301 as a PDF (11.01 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the way that the council dealt with various planning applications concerned with drilling and the exploration and development of coal bed methane from early 2007 until 2009, when an application was submitted for the formation of a gas compressor station. These applications were all approved subject to conditions. Then, from 2011 until 2013, further applications were made to vary the timescales of the permissions that had been granted earlier. Mrs C complained that the council should not have considered the applications on an individual basis and that this should have been considered to be a major development. She also believed that planning officers were not sufficiently expert to deal with the matters nor did they ensure appropriate public consultation. In reply, the council said that due process had been followed throughout. We took independent advice from our planning adviser. Our investigation found that the council had considered the applications in terms of the appropriate planning legislation. Similarly, they followed legislation when varying the timescales applying. There was no evidence to suggest that the developments constituted a major development or that officers were not sufficiently expert to deal with the applications. All the planning applications had been publicly advertised and requirements for neighbour notification fulfilled. Related reading View Decision Report 201304469 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lives near a holiday chalet park with a history of planning applications and amendments.  The council had approved a retrospective planning application, subject to four conditions.  He complained to us about the way they handled a number of planning issues, including a failure to follow correct development plan policies, and to enforce the consent conditions.  He also said there was unauthorised activity at the site, and was unhappy with the council's complaints handling. We took independent advice on this case from one of our planning advisers.  We upheld Mr C's complaints about unreasonable failure or delay by the council to respond to and investigate information about unauthorised excavation and development at the site.  The council had accepted there was an unacceptable delay in acting on information received from Mr C, and that their expected standard of service had fallen short.  We took the view that these were serious failings which had, understandably, caused Mr C to lose confidence in the council (in its role as the planning authority) and to question their actions in relation to the chalet park. We did not, however, uphold Mr C's other complaints.  Although the council had omitted a specific reference to certain development plan policies in the report of handling, we found no evidence that the council had not followed these policies.  We accepted that they had a right to exercise their discretion and to decide on the application as they saw fit.  We also found no breaches of the consent conditions for the council to enforce and were satisfied that the council had adequately investigated Mr C's complaint.  However, as there had been a lack of a full explanation on some matters in the report of handling and in the council's complaints correspondence with Mr C, we made recommendations to address this.

Ms C, who is an independent advocate, complained to the council on behalf of her clients (Mr and Mrs A) that their children's school had not addressed their children's support needs, not protected their well-being, treated them unfairly, and that Mr and Mrs A's complaints to the school were not dealt with appropriately. We reviewed the correspondence between Ms C and the council, their complaints handling procedures and the evidence considered in the council's investigation. We found that there was unreasonable delay in the handling of the complaint as it was not promptly allocated to the investigating officer and, although they apologised for the delay, the council did not explain their error. The investigation, once underway, was thorough and there was no clear evidence to support the views of the parents. As the council had taken steps to address the allocation of complaints and recognised what they needed to put in place to rebuild trust between the parents and the school, we made no further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201405071 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Some years ago, Mr C received a lifetime ban from council facilities. He complained to us that this was unfair, and that the council had a duty to provide him with access to such facilities. We upheld his first complaint, as our investigation found that the council should have offered Mr C a date when the ban would be reviewed. We noted that the council had agreed to meet Mr C to review the ban and that they had noted the gap in their policy, and were also reviewing this. However, we saw no evidence to suggest that the council had a duty to provide Mr C with access to leisure facilities, and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C complained to the council that they had not taken action in response to reports of health and safety issues at a residential caravan site, including abandoned vehicles, and piles of wood and debris that could be a fire hazard. The council first handled Mr C's complaint as a service request. He then wrote to the council again, asking for his original letter to be treated as a complaint. The council told Mr C that he would need to agree with them what he was complaining about and that after this they would respond to his complaint within 20 working days. The council met with Mr C three weeks later and agreed the points of the complaint. They investigated his complaint and gave him a response another four weeks later. Mr C was not satisfied with the council's response, and brought his complaint to us. He complained that they had failed to deal with his complaint in line with their procedures, failed to take action in response to health and safety concerns at the site, and failed to consider formal action under the legislation to revoke the site owners' licence. We investigated Mr C's complaint, and found that the council had not dealt with it in line with their procedures. They had wrongly interpreted the complaints handling timescales and there were unreasonable delays in responding to him. They also gave some incorrect information in their investigation report and failed to clearly respond to all of the agreed points of complaint. We also found, on balance, that they had not taken reasonable action in response to Mr C’s concerns about health and safety. While they had responded well to these at first, there was no evidence that they then followed up appropriately on the measures they put in place. However, we found that the council had not failed to consider taking action under the legislation, as they were waiting for action by a third party, which could resolve the issues, before considering formal action themselves. We issued a decision in which we

Mrs C complained that the council had not followed proper planning procedures when they approved the building of a house on a site near her property. Mrs C said that proper consultation had not taken place and that the objections she and others raised at planning committee were not reasonably considered. She also complained that the decision was not in line with the development plan for the area, and that this was not adequately explained and recorded by the council. Our investigation considered all the correspondence between Mrs C and the council and their responses to her complaints. We also examined relevant planning regulations, policies and development plans, and the papers presented to the committee that approved the planning application, including the planning officer's report and the minutes of the committee meeting. We also took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint about lack of community involvement and consultation, but we did uphold her complaint that the council did not properly follow procedure. We found that the planning application approval was not accurately documented as a departure from policy, as required by regulations, and we made recommendations to address this.

Mrs C drove over a pothole and damaged her car. The matter was dealt with by the council's insurers. Mrs C complained to us because she said that she had been advised by the council that the pothole had been reported previously. She was unhappy that the council had failed to follow up this previous report in line with their obligations. The council told us that they did not tell Mrs C that the pothole had been reported previously. They said that Mrs C's report about the pothole was the first report they received, that the pothole was categorised appropriately and that a repair was completed within the relevant timescale. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201305501 as a PDF (10.87 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C told us he had raised concerns about the behaviour, actions and attitudes of a number of council staff towards him. The council said they did not consider the complaints handling procedure to be the appropriate process to investigate his concerns and that they had been looked at under internal management policies instead. Mr C was unhappy with this decision and complained to us. We looked at the model complaints handling procedure on which all councils should base their internal procedure, as introduced by our Complaints Standards Authority. This says that it should cover complaints about staff attitude, and also requires councils to advise complainants about their right to come to us if they remain dissatisfied after their consideration of a complaint. We said that the council's interpretation was incorrect. Mr C's complaints about staff attitudes should have been considered under the complaints handling procedure. If investigation of such a complaint about staff attitude indicated that disciplinary action was indicated, then any disciplinary proceedings should be considered in private rather than as part of the complaints handling procedure.

Ms C complained that the council had not properly investigated her complaints after she raised a number of concerns with them. The complaints we looked at were not about the underlying issues, but were about how the council handled Ms C's complaints about them. The evidence we saw indicated that the council had considered, investigated and replied to Ms C through their complaints procedure, so we did not uphold her complaint about the investigation. However, it was clear that they had not responded within the appropriate timescales and, in the absence of evidence to indicate why this had happened, we upheld that aspect of her complaint.