SPSO Individual Decisions

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her complaint about a letter written to her husband which contained comments about her. In particular, she was concerned that the council had not contacted her during their investigation of her complaint. She also complained about a number of issues relating to the council's handling of a request to defer her son's entry to primary school. In particular, she was dissatisfied with the accuracy of the information provided and the handling of her complaint. While we had some concerns about aspects of the council's handling of Mrs C's complaint to them, we were satisfied that the council had explained why they had written to Mrs C's husband. However, we did not consider that the council's position on not considering information during an investigation which was covertly obtained was reasonable. We were also satisfied that the council had provided a reasonable explanation for the information provided and saw no evidence of fault in the handling of Mrs C's complaint about this matter.

Miss C said that her daughter (Miss A) was unable to go on an outdoor education trip organised through her school as she had her period that day and there were no arrangements for toilet stops during the outing. After raising a complaint about this with the council, Miss C agreed to look over draft documentation on the council's policy on offsite trips as part of a review group and provide feedback. This process subsequently broke down and Miss C complained again to the council and was given assurances that the changes that she felt should be made would be put in place. When Miss A's school next issued correspondence on an outdoor education trip, Miss C said it was clear that the agreed changes had not been made. Miss C complained that the council acted unreasonably by failing to make the amendments to the documentation on the council's policy which she was led to believe would be put in place. The council acknowledged that this was the case and that the timescale for finalising and implementing the revised documents was unreasonable. This was supported by documentary evidence and we therefore upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint. Miss C also complained that the council's handling of her complaint was unreasonable. Miss C raised several issues, including that the timescale for dealing with her complaint was excessively lengthy. We found that there were unreasonable delays by the council in acknowledging and responding to Miss C's complaint. We also found that the council appeared to be operating two different complaints procedures, one of which (Complaints Procedure 1) contained an excessive number of stages and out-of-date information on rights of appeal, and did not comply with the local authority's model complaints handling procedure. We therefore also upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Mr C complained to the council about a local bus company's use of the street outside his house for driver changeovers. Various options that would help resolve this problem had been considered but none had been put in place. Separately to this, there were plans to upgrade a nearby junction. This project included measures to accommodate driver changeovers and the council anticipated these would resolve Mr C's problems with driver changeovers. Following a local consultation, the council began formal proceedings to carry out the upgrade, including a statutory consultation. Mr C complained that the length of time taken by these proceedings was unreasonable. He also complained that the council was not enforcing regulations on buses stopping in a restricted area near his home. We acknowledged that the statutory process and the way the upgrade project was funded affected the timescale and that this was outside the council's control. However, we found that the council had introduced some avoidable delays that extended the timescale. We also found that the council was aware of drivers being asked by the bus company to stop in the restricted area. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C had previously paved his entire front garden to make a driveway and was given permission from the council to double the length of his dropped kerb to access this area. Mr C said he had difficulty accessing his drive and wished to further extend the dropped kerb. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to appropriately assess his application to extend the drop kerb outside his home. In considering Mr C's complaint, our role was to determine whether the council followed their normal process when dealing with Mr C's application. It was not our role to assess the site in question and determine whether or not Mr C's application should have been approved – that was the council's discretionary decision. We saw no evidence that there was any visit made by a council officer to the site in question prior to giving his initial decision to refuse Mr C's application, although the council said a visit was made. When Mr C questioned the officer's decision it appeared that the council assessed Mr C's application in accordance with their normal process, with the council officer's manager assessing the site in question and setting out his professional opinion on why the application had been refused. On balance, we did not consider that the council unreasonably failed to appropriately assess Mr C's application. However, the evidence showed that the council failed to keep adequate records on the case and deal with Mr C's concerns about their handling of his application and the actions of council staff appropriately. We made recommendations to address this.

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow their policies and procedures in dealing with his reports of anti-social behaviour about two of his neighbours, who were council tenants. Mr C said that his health had suffered considerably due to the actions of his neighbours and the council's failure to deal with the matter appropriately. During our investigation, we looked at whether, in their handling of Mr C's complaints about his neighbours, the council had followed their anti-social behaviour procedure (ASB procedure) and the provisions set out in their Scottish Secure Tenancy Agreement (SSTA). We found that the council had dealt with most of Mr C's reports of anti-social behaviour by his neighbours in accordance with the provisions of the SSTA and their ASB procedure. However, the records showed that having begun action under the SSTA against one of Mr C's neighbours, in relation to a pet being unsupervised in Mr C's garden and common areas, there was no evidence that the council ensured the required action was taken. This was despite Mr C continuing to report problems with his neighbours, providing them with further evidence and telling the council that they were failing to resolve his complaints. We considered that the council's written responses to Mr C's letters were unreasonably brief and failed to fully explain the actions taken by them. The council's responses failed to advise Mr C that some of the matters raised by him were not for the council, or to whom the issues should be reported. This lack of detail was also apparent in the council's written responses to Mr C's formal letters of complaint to them about their handling of the situation. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C was involved in a custody dispute with his former partner. Mr C complained that two letters on council headed notepaper were produced in court proceedings which he considered to be false or fraudulently obtained. Mr C complained that the council had not acted reasonably when he reported this to them. We were satisfied that the council investigated the allegations Mr C made and having established that the letters were unsanctioned and unauthorised, we found that they acted appropriately to remedy the situation by writing to the court and the child benefit office to say so. We were satisfied that the council's obligations under the Data Protection Act meant they were not able to share information about other people with Mr C and were obliged to treat internal staffing matters as confidential. This meant that they were not entitled to share the outcome of their internal investigation with him, or to disclose whether or to what degree staff had been subject to disciplinary action. We determined that the question of whether the matter should have been reported to the police at the end of their internal investigation was a discretionary one. Related reading View Decision Report 201508559 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, a council tenant, complained that the council did not take reasonable steps to address water ingress in her home. She said despite numerous visits and investigations by the council's staff, they had not been able to identify the source of the water ingress and they had failed to carry out specific agreed work to identify the source of the problem. We were satisfied that the council accepted that water ingress was a problem in Ms C's home. The evidence showed that their staff and contractors attended Ms C's home on numerous occasions, conducted a variety of tests and carried out repair work in good faith. When this work proved to be unsuccessful, they sought the opinion of independent specialists and acted upon their recommendations. The overall picture was of the council attempting to identify the cause of the water ingress and when one cause was ruled out, or a remedy did not work, they conducted further investigations and sought to identify other potential causes. We did not find this approach unreasonable. The council had a clear obligation to ensure that Ms C was housed in a property that was wind and watertight. If they were unable to ensure that Ms C's current property met the required standard, they were obliged to arrange for temporary accommodation while the required work was completed and the basic standard restored. We accepted that the council did offer to provide Ms C with temporary accommodation, but that she chose to remain in her home. We were, therefore, satisfied that the council took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the water ingress problems in Ms C's home and offered Ms C temporary accommodation in line with the terms of her tenancy agreement. Related reading View Decision Report 201508651 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the lack of action taken by the council when she reported noise and other nuisance or anti-social behaviour from her neighbour, a council tenant. Mrs C eventually moved out and rented her property out. Mrs C contacted the council to complain when her tenant began to experience the same anti-social behaviour. We found that the council had followed their anti-social behaviour policy. Specifically, when nuisance was reported, we found that the council had visited the property and tried to get statements from the person who reported the nuisance and / or neighbours. Each time they visited they left calling cards. The council offered to install noise monitoring equipment. This did not happen because people moved out or did not want the equipment installed. The council also asked people to make statements or to fill in diary records but these were not returned. The council also worked with the tenant who was causing the problem to try to improve the situation, for example by getting the tenant to agree her dog would be kept on a lead when exiting or entering the block and would not foul the drying green area. When the council did receive the evidence they needed they acted swiftly and issued a warning to the tenant in line with their policy, so we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508513 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C is a council tenant, as is her neighbour who lives above her. Ms C's complaint about the council arose from continuing noise issues she was experiencing with her neighbour. Ms C complained that the council had not acted reasonably in response to her ongoing reports of anti-social behaviour. After investigating, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. We found that the council had taken action following the various incidents she reported and that they had taken steps to find solutions, although it was acknowledged that these were perhaps not as successful as was hoped. During our investigation, the council advised us that they had taken the majority of actions available to them in relation to the noise issues. While we did not uphold the complaint, we did recommend that the council consider the remaining minority of actions to determine whether there were any further steps that would be appropriate to take. As Ms C had indicated at points during the case that she would consider moving, we also recommended that the council look at this and, if Ms C wishes, determine how a move can be facilitated. Finally, Ms C highlighted some concerns about the way her case had been written about in internal documents by council staff. We agreed that some of the terms used were inappropriate and made a further recommendation to address this.

Mr C had complained to a local authority about their services. When they did not investigate his complaint he asked a councillor to review the matter. The councillor felt that this would go beyond his remit and declined to become involved. Mr C complained about the councillor to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland (the commissioner). Mr C alleged that the councillor's code of conduct had been breached. The commissioner investigated Mr C's complaint and concluded that there had been no breach. Mr C subsequently complained to us that the commissioner had investigated a different complaint to the one he had raised, had accepted evidence that was not relevant to his complaint and had taken an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the code of conduct. We found that, whilst the commissioner's summary of Mr C's complaint was different to the point he had raised, his concerns were addressed fully in the commissioner's decision. We were satisfied that the commissioner reached his decision having followed guidance as to how the code of conduct should be interpreted and that he had carried out the investigation reasonably. Related reading View Decision Report 201406475 as a PDF (11.12 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

Mr C complained to the council after being expelled from a council venue whilst distributing literature to other members of the public. During our investigation it became clear that the council staff involved were not aware of the relevant policy at the time of the incident, which led to poor communication with Mr C about why he was being asked to leave. The council had since apologised for this, and provided training to all relevant staff on this matter, which we found to be reasonable. On review of the policy in question, it also became clear that the council staff had discretion to make the decision to expel Mr C, so we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. He also complained that the council had failed to follow their complaints procedure. We found that they had failed to stick to their timescales for acknowledging Mr C's complaint, and also failed to contact Mr C to discuss the investigation, despite agreeing to do so. We upheld this complaint, but commented that we did not feel the failings identified would have affected the outcome of the council's investigation.

Mr C, a council tenant, complained that the council had failed to repair his floor as it had been damaged by council contractors doing improvement work in his home. He was also unhappy that, when upgrading his bathroom, the council contractors had damaged a shower which belonged to him and which he told them he wanted to keep. Following investigation, we upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had acted unreasonably by failing to action their commitment regarding the flooring. The council have apologised to Mr C and will arrange with Mr C for the work to take place. As the council have already taken action on this, we did not make a recommendation. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the broken shower because we found no evidence to support his recollection that the council were made aware that he wanted to keep the shower. Related reading View Decision Report 201406808 as a PDF (10.97 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, a council tenant, complained about the repairs the council did to his home following water ingress. He was also unhappy that he was told he would have to pursue the council's contractor if he wanted to make a compensation claim stemming from those repairs, and also with the way that the council handled his complaint. Mr C had reported water ingress before and the council had arranged repairs as part of an upcoming maintenance project. He reported water ingress again around a year later, in January 2012, and the council attended promptly to lay sheeting in his loft. The evidence indicated that they did work to the slates on his roof in February 2012. However, in July 2012 another repair was needed which identified a problem with their contractor's workmanship during the historic maintenance project. In assessing whether the council had acted reasonably, we found that they had responded reasonably to Mr C's reports and we did not uphold his first complaint. However, as the council neither acknowledged nor responded to Mr C's complaint within the relevant timescales, we upheld his second complaint. In terms of Mr C being told to raise his compensation claim with the council's contractor, only a court can determine liability. Our role was limited to considering the council's administrative handling of the matter. The evidence indicated that the council investigated Mr C's claim and passed the relevant information to their claim handlers, whose advice was that the council were not legally liable. Although any compensation claim would still have had to be raised with their contractor, the council agreed a rent rebate and offered Mr C a discretionary payment for his inconvenience. We recognised that, as a council tenant, Mr C felt he should raise concerns with his landlord and we were critical that, on the basis of the paperwork available, there was no clear statement for tenants of the council's position regarding such claims (for example, an information l

Mr C, who is a council tenant, complained to us about two issues regarding reports he had made to the council about the anti-social behaviour of his neighbour. Firstly, he complained that the council failed to follow their policies and procedures by deciding not to investigate his reports. We found that he had been told that his reports did not constitute anti-social behaviour in terms of the relevant legislation, and his case was closed on these grounds. On reviewing the council's anti-social behaviour procedures, it became clear that his complaint should have been passed to the local housing office and investigated through the procedure. This had not been done and, as such, we upheld his complaint. He also complained that the council had failed to progress repairs to his property to stop smells entering from his neighbour's property. On investigation, it became clear that the council had attempted to progress these works, but Mr C had refused to allow the works to go ahead unless they were done on a Saturday. The council had sent Mr C a letter, clearly stating that Saturdays were outwith their normal working hours and the works would not go ahead until he proposed a suitable time. We found this to be a reasonable response and, as such, did not uphold this part of his complaint.

Ms C, a council tenant, was unhappy with the steps the council had taken as her landlord. Her property had required a substantial repair the day after she moved in and, from the outset, she did not think it met the required standard of repair. Ms C was also unhappy with the amount of compensation they offered her following this, the fact that they did not provide her with alternative living and storage arrangements while works were being done, and also with the time taken for subsequent repairs. The council said that, when they did their normal inspection of the property before allocating it to Ms C, there had been no clear signs pointing to the problem. However, a historic repair they had done had been inadequate – it led to the additional repair then being needed. Therefore, on balance, we considered the evidence available indicated that the council had not provided a flat that met the required standard of repair when Ms C moved in. We upheld this complaint. Our role in considering Ms C’s compensation claim was limited to the council’s administrative handling of it. The evidence indicated that the council had offered Ms C the amount she had asked for. She said she would have asked for more had she known it would have been offset against her council tax arrears, but the council's guidance did explain that would happen. In addition, the form she signed included a declaration that Ms C had read and understood this guidance. However, the evidence also indicated that the council did not adjust Ms C’s award for depreciation or the lack of documentation, which they said they would do. The council had increased their offer following her additional contact and we did not uphold this complaint. Ms C’s lease said the council could require her to move temporarily for necessary repairs, but not that they had to move her for all repairs. They had offered alternative accommodation following the initial issue and during more recent repairs. There was no evidence that

Mrs C made several reports to the council about anti-social behaviour by a council tenant and her visitors. She complained to the council that they had not taken sufficient action to protect her and asked that they investigate her complaints. The council responded that support services had been involved and that, as there had been no recent reports of anti-social behaviour, they had closed their case. They also said that they had repaired the damage to their tenant’s door after the most recent incident. Mrs C was not satisfied that they had done all that they should to resolve the problems she and her neighbours faced. We investigated the complaint and the council provided their records. We recognised that, due to confidentiality, the council had not disclosed to Mrs C details of the action taken in response to her complaints. As a result, Mrs C had gained the impression that insufficient action was being taken. However, in response to our enquiries, the council provided us with information about their action. We recognised that, as it had been agreed that Mrs C would report any incident verbally, the council had not provided an incident diary. However, we felt that the council should have considered the use of such a diary, as this would have enabled Mrs C to have a written statement of the incidents. In addition, while there had been a delay in completing all the repairs to the door, these had now been completed. While we recognised that Mrs C was only provided with limited information on the action being taken by the council, we were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council took reasonable action to address the complaints received. We did not uphold the complaint.

Miss C complained that the council failed to properly investigate when she complained to them that she had been knocked off her bicycle by a council employee who opened his van door directly into her path. She complained that the driver did not stop to make sure she was unhurt. She said he said that she should have rung her bell and he then left in his van. She also complained to our office about the significant length of time it had taken the council to respond to her complaint. The council eventually wrote to Miss C to advise that they were unable to trace the van or driver from the details Miss C had provided and could not, therefore, accept any liability for the incident. Although the issue of liability in an accident like this can only be determined by the courts, we did look into the background of the case in order to establish whether or not the council's investigations into the incident were reasonable, and whether they had dealt with Miss C's complaint appropriately. We found that the council did conduct an investigation to identify the van and driver involved but, on the basis of the limited information provided by Miss C, they were unable to identify the vehicle or driver. We found their investigations to be reasonable. However, we noted that the council initially failed completely to respond to Miss C's complaint and, when they did contact her, this was through the claims process rather than the complaints process. We noted that the council did not respond to the questions Miss C raised in her complaint even after prompting by our office. It was not until we had begun our investigation that the council finally wrote to Miss C to answer her questions and to provide information about how to complain to our office. As a result of these failings, and the significant delay in responding to her complaint (around 15 months), we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We recommended to the council that they review their procedures, in light of our findings, in orde

Mr C complained that a council officer unreasonably barred his entry into a public event that was being held in a council facility. He also complained that the officer's behaviour at the time was inappropriate. He then complained to the council about this incident but was dissatisfied with their investigation and response. He said that they had not explained the complaints process to him, and they had not interviewed the only independent witness to these events. We considered the investigation carried out by the council and noted that they had given Mr C information about the complaints process and asked for contact details for his witness by email. We noted, however, that one of these emails was returned undelivered as the email address, despite being correct, was not recognised. We were satisfied that they had properly investigated his complaint and asked for the witness's details, which Mr C had not originally provided. We also noted that council staff were entitled to take action where they consider that their staff are likely to be subjected to unacceptable behaviour by a member of the public, and that this complied with the council's unacceptable actions policy and their policy on dignity and respect in the workplace. We found no additional evidence to support Mr C's claim that staff had behaved inappropriately when barring him from the event. For these reasons, we did not uphold his complaint. However, we did recommend that, for the sake of completeness, the council now contact his witness to see whether his recollection of events would affect their decision on Mr C's complaint. We also recommended that they ensure that all incidents of unacceptable behaviour by members of the public are properly recorded in line with their own procedures.

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council had failed to take reasonable action in response to their concerns about flooding at properties that belonged to their son and daughter. They said that the council had failed to meet their duties under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. The council had assessed the risk of flooding in the relevant area and had issued two options to property owners to resolve the matter. They considered that one of these would cost more than the other and told residents that if that option was chosen, they would require the properties benefitting from this work to come to an agreement to share the additional cost beyond the cost of the cheaper option. The residents failed to reach an agreement and, consequently, no work was carried out. The council have discretion in relation to the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. Under our legislation, we can check that a council has followed the correct process. However, if the decision was made properly, we cannot question or change it. We found that the council had delayed in dealing with some of Mr and Mrs C's correspondence. Although we said that these delays were unacceptable, we were satisfied that the council had apologised to Mr and Mrs C for this and had taken steps to try to prevent problems of a similar nature occurring. The council had also tried to resolve the matter by presenting two options to residents and we found that this was reasonable. We considered that the council had acted reasonably in relation to their duties under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201203283 as a PDF (11.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C told us that when she and her son (Mr A) moved onto a caravan site they were told by the site owner it was an all-year-round residential site. They later found out that there was a site licence condition which limited residency to eight months per year. Mrs C and Mr A said that when they went to register to pay council tax, the council should have alerted them to the licence condition. We accepted the council's position, which was that the site licence condition was not of significance in relation to council tax liability. Officers responsible for council tax only had to establish whether the caravan was occupied as Mrs C and Mr A's main or only residence. The council said, and we agreed, that the terms of Mrs C and Mr A's lease or rental agreement was a matter between them and the site owner. Mrs A and Mr C said a council officer came on site without good reason and discussed their private business within hearing distance of other people. We found that the council officer did not show his identification when he went on site and we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. The council had already apologised for this. Mr A refused to speak to the council officer. Mrs C and Mr A said that there was no need for the council's visit as they had already been to the council office to tell the council that they were moving and where they were going to. The council confirmed the visit but said Mrs C and Mr A did not provide a forwarding address. We found that the council were entitled to visit the site either to check the information they were given or to get further details. In this case they needed a forwarding address and to confirm a leaving date so they could end the council tax liability. We found, on balance, that there was not enough evidence to confidently say whether Mr A's private business had been discussed in front of other people and, therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201500516 as a PDF (11.45 K

Mr C complained that the council had charged him a call-out fee for their shared repair service. The council advised that there would be a call-out charge if the issue was not considered as an emergency. When a council officer attended Mr C's property it did not appear to be an emergency and no action was taken, and a call-out charge was issued to Mr C. We found that Mr C had been informed of the possibility of a call-out charge and there was no evidence that the issue should have been noted as an emergency. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406917 as a PDF (10.83 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, a council tenant, told us the council were unreasonably imposing a weekly charge for a shower. There was a shower in the flat when she moved in. Ms C said that when she signed the tenancy she assumed that the weekly shower charge was just a normal rent charge. When she asked the council about it she was told the shower could not be removed and replaced with a bath. Ms C felt she had paid unnecessarily for a basic shower which she could have had installed herself for a much lower cost. We found the council's shower installation programme was designed to offer choice to tenants, at no cost to the council. Councils have a limited budget to spend and must decide how to use their resources carefully. It was the council's policy to impose a weekly charge for the shower installed in Ms C's home. The council provided details of the calculations, which covered a 30-year period, on which the shower charge was based. We found that Ms C exercised choice in taking the tenancy on and that the council made her aware that there was a weekly charge for the shower which was additional to the rent. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407336 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C, a council tenant, complained about various aspects of the services she had received from the council. She complained that a warning marker had been put on her records, and had not been reviewed in line with policy. This marker indicated that staff should visit her in pairs. The council acknowledged that a warning indicator had been put on some of her records, and had not been reviewed, and they apologised for this. They gave assurances that none of her other records had indicators on them, but Miss C questioned this. We did not find any evidence of any other warning indicators, but were critical of the consistency of the information given to Miss C in relation to these indicators. In light of Miss C's complaint, the council told us that they had revised their procedure for recording warning indicators on customers' case notes. Miss C also complained that there were numerous repairs required to her property, which had not been resolved by the council. We found that the council had tried to engage with Miss C on numerous occasions since she moved into her property to carry out the necessary repairs, but that they had not been able to get access to her property or she had not been satisfied with the work they had undertaken. We found that, while there were still outstanding repairs, they had made reasonable efforts to try to resolve these issues. Miss C also expressed concern that the council had not made reasonable adjustments in the way they provided their housing services, despite informing them of her mental health needs. We identified a range of adjustments that the council had made to their services to meet Miss C's needs, in line with their policies. However, we considered that it would have been helpful for them to have procedures in place to assist staff with identifying and recording reasonable adjustments for their customers.

Miss C complained to us that the council did not respond reasonably to her complaint about the transition arrangements for transferring her child from nursery to primary school and that her child's educational needs were not being appropriately met at the school. Miss C's child has additional educational needs and, at the time she complained to us, was being assessed for autistic spectrum disorder. We were satisfied that the council took Miss C's complaint seriously. They appointed a council education officer to investigate, who met with Miss C to discuss the complaint and the proposed investigation. The findings and proposed recommendations of that investigation were discussed with Miss C at a second meeting during which the council accepted that there were failings in the service Miss C had received. They said that lessons had been learned and they apologised. However, we were of the view that the council's final decision letter, issued after the second meeting, was premature. This was because Miss C's comments on the minutes of the meeting had not at that time been received and because the officer had told Miss C that she was postponing sending the final decision letter as her involvement was ongoing and a further meeting had been scheduled for a later date. Also, as the decision letter was the council's final response on Miss C's complaint, we considered that the council should have informed Miss C of her right to independent mediation and adjudication under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, if she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation of her complaint. There was no evidence the council did so at that time and this alternative avenue did not appear to have been raised until two months later when Miss C made a request for independent mediation after she had removed her child from the school. We were critical of the council for their failure to do so.