SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of Mr A. Mr A had approached the council for assistance in caring for his mother. Mr A was dissatisfied with the way in which his requests were handled by the council. He complained to the council and this was handled through the social work complaints procedure. As Mr A's complaint had been heard by a Complaints Review Committee (CRC), we were limited to considering complaints about the way in which his complaint had been handled. Mr C said that Mr A's complaint had been unreasonably put on hold because Mr A had said he was seeking compensation, that the council had failed to consider and respond to Mr A's comments on the draft report and that it was unreasonable that the council's legal representative stayed with the CRC panel when they broke up for recess. Following investigations, we concluded that the statutory social work complaints procedure and associated guidance indicated that the council had to receive a clear indication that the subject of the complaint was actively being pursued by legal action before a complaint could be suspended, rather than there being a verbal expression of intention. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We also had concerns that the council's own complaints procedure did not reflect the wording of the statutory social work complaints process and recommended that the council review this. In relation to Mr C's concerns that the council had not adequately considered and responded to Mr A's comments on the draft report, we could see no indication that a full response to the comments was required or that Mr A had been given an indication that this would be given. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. We were concerned that by being invited for comments, this had potentially raised Mr A's expectations that a detailed response would be given and that the matter would be investigated further. In relation to Mr C's concerns that the coun

Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of a planning application for additional parking along his parents' street. He said that the council had not fully considered several material planning considerations when they granted consent with conditions, and that he had not been given an opportunity to speak at the council meeting when the application was determined. He also complained that, when he reported to the council that conditions on the planning consent had not been met, the council did not take any enforcement action. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. He noted the procedures which the council had implemented in handling the planning application, and the presentation of the various different issues raised as objections to the application. He reviewed how these had been presented and considered in the report on the application, and considered that the council had taken a reasonable approach to each of the concerns raised. The adviser also noted appropriate consultations with the council's roads department. He reviewed the procedures in relation to public hearings, and was satisfied that the council had applied these appropriately. In terms of following up on the conditions of the consent, the adviser was satisfied that the approach taken by the council had been reasonable, though they noted the extended timescales involved, which were not in line with the council's Enforcement Charter. We found that the council had followed their procedures appropriately in relation to their consideration and determination of the planning application. We also considered that it was in line with their policies not to allow for public presentations at the council meeting, in relation to this application. In relation to potential enforcement action, we were satisfied that they had taken a reasonable approach in not taking formal enforcement action. However, we were critical that they had not taken prompt action, and that they had not kept Mr C

Mr C complained that the council refused his request for a disabled parking bay outside his home. He has mobility problems following a stroke, and is a wheelchair user. Mr C's wife also has limited mobility, and they are both registered deaf, blind and are blue badge holders. We found that Mr C's request had been assessed appropriately by the council in line with the legislation, and with the council's own policy. Mr C and his wife did not meet the criteria, as they do not have a vehicle that is suitable for their use registered to them at their home address. We were satisfied that the council had taken reasonable steps to assess and check that there were suitable alternatives in place which would allow Mr C and his wife to be picked up and dropped off safely when they were taken out. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201503435 as a PDF (10.98 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council's sheriff officers unreasonably visited his home three times during a three-month period, and that a member of staff in the council's collections office was rude and evasive during a phone call. We found that Mr C was asked by the council to make payments to the sheriff officers, but he declined to do so and wanted to pay the council directly. This meant that there was a delay in updating the sheriff officers' records after payment was made. It was as a result of this delay that, when sheriff officers first visited to serve a charge notice, the outstanding balance on the notice was incorrect. They re-attended having updated the outstanding balance but, once again, Mr C had made a payment in the meantime. They withdrew the notice again and reissued it a few days later for the correct value. As Mr C was asked to make payments directly to sheriff officers but declined to do so, we did not consider the delay in updating the account balances to be unreasonable. As a result, we found that the three visits by sheriff officers were not unreasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We also noted that the council did not record their phone calls. We were unable, therefore, to reach a conclusion on Mr C's complaint about the tone of the phone call with a council officer. Related reading View Decision Report 201405561 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of complaints about some of their tenants in a neighbouring property, which was used by the council to temporarily house homeless households from 2011 to 2014. Mrs C complained about the way her complaints were handled by the council and, in particular, that the council had failed to investigate the issues raised and had failed to keep her advised of the progress and outcome of their investigations. Our investigation found that concerns were raised about the tenants of the neighbouring property during 2011, and that the council explained the action they had taken. Incidents continued to be reported to the council, and the council continued to investigate these incidents and take action that they considered appropriate. The council said they accepted that, during the time they had used the property, residents in the neighbouring block had had cause to complain about anti-social behaviour. They indicated they were sorry for the distress and inconvenience caused, and decided that the property would be returned to the owner and would no longer be used by the council to accommodate homeless households. We were satisfied that the council took action on the incidents reported and kept the complainants informed of the action taken. While we did not uphold the complaint, we did find that it would have been helpful to support Mrs C by issuing her with an incident diary.

Miss C complained to the council about damp in her house. Following an inspection, the council advised that they would engage a damp-proofing specialist to remedy the potential failure of a damp-proof course and potential rising damp. The council did not do this within a timescale Miss C considered reasonable and she raised her complaints with us. We found that there had been a delay in engaging a specialist and that this was caused by an administrative oversight. Given this, we upheld the complaint.

Mrs C submitted a request for her daughters to move school. She contacted the council and recalls being told that, given her address was within the catchment area and her family observed the religion associated with the school, her daughters would be eligible for free school transport. When the transfer request was granted, though, Mrs C was told that her daughters were not entitled to free school transport. She complained to the council who maintained that the decision was in line with their policy. Mrs C was dissatisfied and raised her complaints with this office. We could find no clear, objective evidence that Mrs C had been told her daughters would be eligible for free school transport and all the council's relevant publications made it clear that free transport would not be provided in such circumstances. Given this, we did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201403755 as a PDF (10.96 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C was unhappy with the works that were carried out in her home in response to the high levels of damp and mould throughout. It was agreed with Ms C and the council for remedial works to be carried out and a dehumidifier installed with the running costs reimbursed. We closed the file and took no further action. Related reading View Decision Report 201407363 as a PDF (10.71 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C raised a number of complaints about the council’s handling of a neighbouring planning application. She was unhappy with the positioning of the driveway, the material used for the boundary wall and the fact that the council had not taken enforcement action over certain matters. Our role was to consider the council’s administrative handling of the matter. We could not question their discretionary decision-making unless something had gone wrong in their decision making process (such as a failure to act in line with a relevant policy or procedure). As part of our investigation we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who confirmed that the council had acted within their discretionary powers with the driveway and the boundary wall, and that the evidence did not point to the council needing to take enforcement action over the issues Mrs C raised. We did not uphold these complaints. Mrs C had also complained that the council took too long to have a neighbour’s security camera removed (she was concerned that it affected her privacy). The council felt they had acted in line with their enforcement charter and had taken the appropriate steps. Although the camera had since been removed, our adviser felt the council could have done more sooner. We recognised the importance of Mrs C’s privacy and noted that the enforcement charter, while explaining that the council would normally try to negotiate a solution, said that they would treat matters affecting privacy as priorities. Although we accepted that the council’s standard practice was to negotiate and that a solution appeared to have been found, we considered that the time taken – which appeared to have been several months – was unreasonable in the circumstances. We upheld this complaint.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to ensure that a properly accessible manhole cover was installed (in line with the approved drawings) at the development where he had bought a house. He also felt they had failed to confirm that the surface water drainage satisfied the approved plans and that his house's roof construction met the correct standards. Mr C had bought his house without a completion certificate being in place and he was unhappy at the steps the council had taken with the development. In considering Mr C's complaints, we took account of the extent of the council's role and obligations. The evidence they provided – including Scottish Government guidance on the building standards system - indicated that it was not their role to effectively supervise the development or to ensure compliance with plans or drawings. In addition, the fact that the manhole cover was missing years after the development was completed did not, by extension, mean it was never in place. Although we could not confirm from the paperwork whether the manhole cover was ever in place, the evidence showed that the council's role was clearly less than Mr C had expected. In terms of Mr C's second complaint, the council said they were not required to test the development's surface water system. They also said that this would not be part of the final inspection following an application for a completion certificate (noting that there had been no such application for Mr C's property). Mr C had indicated that the drainage system had actually been working successfully and the evidence again pointed to the council's limited role. Although his concerns were clear, there was no evidence that the council had done anything wrong. Finally, the council told Mr C that enclosing the eaves of his roof was neither required under building regulations nor part of a final inspection. Rather, a roof would generally be visually inspected from ground level, with an intrusive inspection possibly fo

Mr C complained about the council's role in relation to a housing development in which he had bought a house from a developer who was no longer trading, and with no completion certificate. Mr C complained that the council had not ensured that the access road met the approved plans or building regulations. He also questioned whether a fire engine would be able to access his house, and was unhappy that the council would not survey the road to check its width. We reviewed the evidence and could see that the relevant building regulations had required a minimum road width of 3.7 metres. In addition, the council had acknowledged to Mr C that the approved drawings specified a width of 4.0 metres. However, the council said the road's adequacy would have been considered when they granted completion certificates to the development's other properties. They said their surveyors would not have needed to measure its width and this was a matter of professional judgment. The council provided us with copies of Scottish Government guidance relating to the building standards system. We considered the guidance and it indicated that the council do not stand behind a developer's work, nor is it their role to ensure it is done to an owner's satisfaction. The evidence showed that the responsibility for compliance was not the council's and did not point to maladministration by them. Their role was not as extensive as Mr C might have wished it to have been and we did not uphold his complaint. In terms of Mr C's second complaint, the council told him that the building regulations in place at the time did not require them to consult with the fire authority. Although Mr C felt best practice would have been for the council to have done so anyway, they provided evidence to show they had recently arranged for the fire service to attend the development. The fire service had confirmed they were comfortable with access in the event of an emergency and that they had no concerns. In light of

Mr C complained about how the council handled his concerns about nuisance and anti-social behaviour. He had complained about damage to common areas, noise nuisance and the keeping of chickens which he believed attracted vermin. We found that the council followed their policy when Mr C reported neighbour nuisance and took reasonable steps to investigate and corroborate his complaints. They inspected the area where the chickens were kept and found it to be of a reasonable standard. They found no evidence of vermin and offered advice about signs of rodent activity to watch out for. They also offered to monitor noise by installing monitoring equipment, although Mr C declined this. The council took reasonable steps to obtain witness evidence. We found that the evidence gathered did not substantiate Mr C's concerns and so the council had no grounds on which to act. Although they saw damage to a gate, there was no evidence to prove who was responsible for this. The council had advised Mr C's neighbour that the close was common to both properties and that they should respect this, and had offered mediation. We concluded that the council acted appropriately. Related reading View Decision Report 201404348 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Due to health problems, Mr C finds it difficult to climb the stairs in his house. He applied to the council for adaptations to his home, but they declined this. His case was considered at a social work complaints review sub-committee (CRC) but, again, no adaptations were agreed. Mr C complained that the CRC was not carried out in line with the relevant procedure. Specifically, he complained that although he was only allowed to bring one representative to the CRC, the social work department had three representatives. He felt that this was unfair and complained that he was also denied the opportunity to ask questions of the staff involved in his request for adaptations. We found that the CRC was conducted in line with the relevant guidance. That said, we felt that the council could have provided Mr C with details of the number of attendees in advance of the hearing to avoid surprises. We were also satisfied that Mr C was allowed to ask questions at the hearing. However, we were critical that there was a lack of records showing what questions were asked, who responded and what the response was.

Mr C complained that his local council did not handle a retrospective planning application fairly or in line with their own procedures. Neighbours had demolished a boundary wall and removed hedging between their and Mr C's property. When they applied for retrospective planning permission for this, Mr C and others lodged objections, and he then complained that these were not dealt with properly. He said that none of the objectors was given the opportunity to speak at the planning committee meeting, at which permission was granted subject to some conditions. Mr C also complained that the application was not dealt with properly, including that some information was not available on the council's website, meeting papers were not published in time to give objectors time to correspond with the council, and that a council planning representative gave inaccurate, incomplete and/or misleading information to the meeting. Our investigation included taking advice from one of our planning advisers and reviewing relevant legislation. We found that the council's planning process complied with the requirements of the legislation, and that the application had been dealt with in line with the process. On the specific issues raised by Mr C, we found that sufficient information about the application had been available to the public during the planning process. The relevant papers were published four working days before the meeting and this complied with the legislation, which requires any relevant papers to be published three full working days beforehand. The process does not allow objectors to address planning committee meetings, but we found that all the objections were included and responded to in the planning officer's report to the committee. Therefore, overall we considered that the council had processed the application in accordance with their process and the governing legislation. Related reading View Decision Report 201304445 as a PDF (11.43 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the council had not considered her complaints in line with the social work complaints procedure. Ms C had complained on behalf of her friend (Ms A) about the extent of Ms A’s involvement in the care the council were providing for her aunt (Miss B). Ms C sent her complaint to the council in May 2013, enclosing a mandate signed by Ms A, authorising Ms C to complain on her behalf. She did not receive a response and wrote to the council again a month later. They responded towards the end of August. Ms C then emailed asking for her complaint to be considered by a complaints review committee (the final stage in the social work complaints procedure). Although the council acknowledged the email, Ms C then had to contact them again before they wrote to her some three weeks later. They explained that they would not be responding to Ms C directly, as Miss B had not appointed her to handle her affairs. The council told us that they had responded appropriately to Ms C as she did not have the authority to complain on Miss B’s behalf. They also considered it unclear whether she had Ms A’s authority. They did not think that the law and guidance about the social work complaints process allowed either Ms C or Ms A to complain on Miss B’s behalf. We could consider only the way the council had responded to the complaints Ms C had made on behalf of Ms A, not the underlying concerns she raised. We noted that when Ms C complained she had enclosed Ms A's mandate. Although, in line with the guidance around the social work complaints procedure, the council may not always have to take a third party’s complaint through that process, we considered that they could have responded to Ms C sooner and more clearly to explain their concerns. The paperwork indicated that their first response was sent over three months after she first complained and so, taking everything into account, we took the view that their handling of the matter fell below a reasonable standard.

Mrs C is the owner-occupier of a flat in a block of flats. She complained that the council did not give her enough information about the costs of a common housing repair that they carried out in the block. We found that the council are Mrs C's property factors, and we are excluded from looking at factoring arrangements under schedule 4 of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act. We did, however, look at their complaints handling and found that, although improvements could be made in how they responded to her initial queries, they had followed their complaints procedure. Related reading View Decision Report 201400530 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the council did not keep her informed of her housing allocation points status. She also said that her complaint about this was not properly investigated. Ms C had been awarded medical points for a previous property but when she moved into a private let these were removed. She only found this out when she attended a meeting about her housing status. When she complained, the council said that her points had been correctly removed and confirmed that she should have been told about this. Our investigation found that the council should have kept Ms C informed about her housing allocation points, and we upheld her complaint. However, as they had apologised and reminded staff of their responsibilities, we did not make any recommendations. We did not uphold her second complaint as we found that they had conducted their investigation in line with their complaints handling procedure. Related reading View Decision Report 201400624 as a PDF (11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained to the council about the actions of their agents while they were pursuing a debt with her, and the way she had been spoken to by a council officer on the phone. The council did not respond to her specific concern about the council officer when they replied to her complaints, and so Miss C raised this with us. Our investigation found that the council had taken steps to clarify the specific matters Miss C wished to complain of. As these included the way she had been spoken to by a council officer and this was not addressed in the council's response, we upheld the complaint.

Mr C complained that the council left his daughter (Ms A) without a smoke detector for some time following a repair to her ceiling, and that this had endangered her life. He was concerned that they had failed to recognise the importance of his initial complaint about this, which he made as soon as he became aware of the situation. In responding to his complaints about this, and other matters, he said the council had not answered his specific points and that he had not been able to speak to the chief executive. The chief executive, in responding to the complaint, had said that a tradesperson left a card when they could not gain access to the house, and Ms A had not responded. However, the council told us that they had now established that this information was incorrect and no such card was left. We upheld Mr C's complaint about the failure to ensure that a smoke alarm was fitted, and made two recommendations for improvements to the procedure for gaining access to a tenant's property when earlier attempts have been unsuccessful. We found that the council had addressed all the issues Mr C had raised, within the 20 working days set out in their complaints handling procedure. We confirmed that the chief executive was correct in telling Mr C that it is not possible for him to deal personally with every complaint addressed to him, and confirmed we would not expect him to speak directly to a complainant except in very exceptional circumstances. We did not uphold the complaint about complaints handling.

Mrs C applied to the council for assistance through a community care grant. This is available to help people on a low income live independently in the community and is paid out of the Scottish Welfare Fund, which is a national scheme delivered by local authorities. Mrs C applied to the scheme mainly for help with purchasing household items, including carpets and curtains. The council decided not to award Mrs C assistance for carpets and curtains because they said her circumstances did not match the situation with which community care grants were set up to help. They said she purchased the items herself before the decision on her application was made, and pointed out that they normally awarded items in goods, not cash. Mrs C complained about the way the council handled her application. She said she was not told that, if her application was successful, the award for carpets and curtains would be in goods. She also said the council failed to appropriately respond to her complaint. We listened to a copy of the recording of Mrs C's phone call in which she applied for assistance. This confirmed that she was not told that if her application was successful the council would provide the relevant items. We noted that both the council's decision makers guide and Scottish Government guidance confirm that the council are entitled to decide whether to make such awards in goods or cash. However, the council should have clearly explained this to Mrs C at the start. Also, after listening to the call, we found that the call handler was often vague when trying to explain what the council needed from Mrs C to progress her application, and their position often conflicted with the information in the Scottish Government guidance. We also found that the call handler commented inappropriately about other benefits that Mrs C received. In light of this, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that the council's handling of her application was poor. In addition, when responding to Mrs C's comp

Mrs C complained on behalf of her son that the council had decided to discontinue their consideration of the complaints that she had submitted. During our consideration of the matter we obtained information from the council and, based upon this, we decided it was not appropriate for us to consider the matter further. Related reading View Decision Report 201304563 as a PDF (10.71 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C was rehoused following problems with antisocial behaviour in her previous neighbourhood, but was unhappy with the new property as there were some problems with a neighbour. She complained that the council were at fault in allocating her a new property where it was known that there were also antisocial behaviour problems and that they had withheld this information from her. Our investigation found evidence that the council had taken into consideration the circumstances surrounding Ms C being rehoused, had conducted a risk assessment and allocated the property to her in line with their policies and procedures. We did not uphold her complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201302781 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to the council about their handling of an incident involving her late brother (Mr A). Mr A had severe learning difficulties and at the time of the incident was receiving 24-hour support at home from a care provider. He fell down a flight of stairs and was seriously injured, after the carer administered a drug with a sedative effect. Mr A died some time later. We acknowledged that the council's communication with Ms C could have been clearer in relation to who was actually investigating the incident but did not consider that they had intentionally misled her. Neither did we consider it unreasonable that the council did not hold a further complaints hearing after Ms C provided them with a report from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as the report contained little information that was not already available to the council. We also determined that the council provided a reasonable explanation about why they did not follow procedures laid out in the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 and associated code of practice issued by the Scottish Government. We noted, however, that the Scottish Government introduced guidance two months after the incident, clarifying the role of the chief social work officer (CSWO). This outlined that the CSWO should ensure that significant case reviews are carried out into all critical incidents either resulting in, or which could have resulted in, death or serious harm. Although the guidance was not in place at the time of the incident involving Ms C's brother, it came into effect less than two months later, and the council received the care provider's report into the investigation after the guidance had been published. Given the seriousness of the incident, therefore, and the fact that the HSE only recently disclosed more of their report, we concluded that it would have been reasonable for the council to have conducted a significant case review. This would have enabled them to look at all aspects of M

Mr C and Ms C complained to us about how the council handled their complaints about their neighbours' antisocial behaviour (ASB). They said that their sleep was frequently disturbed and they were concerned for the safety of their family and property. They complained that the council had failed to investigate, had not responded to complaints within their published timescales and did not keep them informed about what action was being taken. Mr C and Ms C had also kept diary sheets with details of the disturbances that had been occurring, and they said that the council had failed to act on these. We upheld Mr C and Ms C's complaint. Our investigation found that they had complained to the council over a nineteen-month period. The council had recorded or noted several incidents, and had taken action after the first few, but had then failed to follow up later complaints appropriately. We found that the council had only issued diary sheets once, and had not followed up when they did not receive completed copies. We also found that internal communication documents showed that the council were aware that the situation was deteriorating, but they took several months to achieve a satisfactory solution. The council also failed to appropriately record and respond to each complaint within their published timescales and, in particular, did not keep Mr C and Ms C informed of the outcome of their investigations or their decisions.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to resolve a range of problems he had with the wet electric central heating system that they had installed in his property. These included leaking radiators; the boiler being too small, and not working; heating thermostats burning out; hot water not coming up to temperature; and the times at which the heating came on and off. He also complained that the cost of running the system was too high. The council had responded to each maintenance request within their timescales for such repairs. They also arranged for the installers and the manufacturers of the system to visit Mr C and ensure that it was working appropriately. Their energy officer also visited to provide energy efficiency advice, and the council contacted an energy assistance organisation to provide Mr C with further information and advice, and to ensure that Mr C was on the correct electricity tariff. Mr C's property is also due to have additional insulation installed within the next year. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council had responded appropriately to each of the maintenance issues raised, and had taken reasonable action to help him reduce electricity costs. We noted that they had involved a range of agencies trying to resolve Mr C's concerns, and found no evidence that the central heating system was not working appropriately. Related reading View Decision Report 201203718 as a PDF (11.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018