SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the council had not reasonably investigated and responded to his concerns about what he considered to be discriminatory treatment of his child by a teacher. He complained that the school had allowed the practice to continue and also believed that incidents and meetings/contact with school staff to discuss his concerns were not logged or recorded. We upheld part of Mr C's complaint. Our investigation found that the council had carried out a reasonable investigation, considered all available evidence and responded to the issues raised. We also found, however, that the school had not recorded incidents and contacts in the appropriate way.

Mrs C's child had suffered verbal abuse, physical assault and bullying on social media. Mrs C complained that the school did not follow anti-bullying policies, and that the council's policy did not provide adequate protection. She said that the school and the council had not taken enough steps to protect her child. The council responded that they were reviewing their policy, but that was a year after Mrs C had first raised her concerns. We upheld Mrs C's complaint and made a number of recommendations, as our investigation found that policy and procedures were not followed, no action had been taken in relation to evidence of bullying on social media, and evidence of a serious incident had not been kept. We also found that the council had not taken reasonable steps to ensure the adequacy of their anti-bullying policy.

Mrs C complained that a school had unreasonably excluded her child. She also complained that they offered a mediation session to allow her to discuss this but, when she went to it staff refused to listen to her side of the story or to allow her child to attend. She was also unhappy about the way the council dealt with her complaint about this. The council said that they had offered the mediation session to ensure that appropriate support was in place to allow her child to return to school and that they had made clear to Mrs C that the meeting was not held to discuss the exclusion. They also said that they had dealt with her subsequent complaint in line with their complaints procedure. We found that, although the council offered the mediation meeting in order to try and ensure that Mrs C's child returned to school as quickly as possible and were trying to help resolve this, they incorrectly told Mrs C that the mediation meeting and complaint were an alternative to the appeals process. This was not the case, and there is a separate statutory process that considers appeals against school exclusions. We concluded that the council provided Mrs C with misleading information. In terms of her complaint, we found no evidence to suggest that the school failed to take her concerns seriously or failed to investigate every allegation she made. We did, however, conclude that they failed to address all her complaints as they had said that they could not look at new issues she raised with them after concluding her original complaints. As a result of these failings, we upheld her complaints.

Mr C complained that the council had carried out works to remove loose render (a covering of plaster or cement) from the outside of his property without first discussing this with other property owners. He complained that this caused additional damage to the render, cost more than was reasonable and that the council failed to carry out repairs. The council had explained to Mr C that they received a report from an occupier (who happened to be a council tenant) of render falling from the top flat onto the gardens below. They inspected the site and determined, for safety reasons, that they needed to use their statutory powers to issue an emergency statutory notice and instruct a contractor to make the site safe. The contractor did so by removing patches of loose render. Whilst they acknowledged Mr C's concerns about the amount of render removed, they explained that their contractor had only removed the render he considered unsafe. Our investigation reviewed the council's actions and found that they had acted appropriately, and in line with their statutory duties when addressing this issue. Related reading View Decision Report 201301617 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that the council had not followed their procedures when dealing with concerns about her son at school. Mrs C was concerned about incidents of alleged bullying, as well as the school's communication with her. We looked at the relevant procedures and the school's records about Mrs C's son. We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to deal with failings they had identified previously. We also found that, while some aspects could have been dealt with better, where procedures were in place they were followed, and the actions of school staff were reasonable in the circumstances. Although we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint, we did make two recommendations to reinforce good practice.

Miss C complained to us because she was dissatisfied with the way the council had investigated her complaints about a teacher at her son’s former school.  She said that her son had been bullied, and was not satisfied that the school were doing enough to recognise the problem.  Miss C had since placed her son in another school.  Although the council had said he could return to the original school, she felt that this could not happen without an apology from the teacher, and recognition by the council of their fault in the way they handled the matter.  The complaint that we looked at, however, was only about how the council handled the matter, as we are excluded from looking directly into the internal affairs in an educational establishment run by a local authority. We did not uphold Miss C’s complaints.  She said that the council’s investigation was flawed in failing to answer any of her questions about the way she had been treated by the teacher, but we saw nothing to suggest that procedures were not properly followed, or that there was any omission in the response she was given.  Miss C was concerned that the council’s investigating officer did not tell her that she was about to leave the council, but the council told us that there was no reason for the member of staff to do so.  We agreed that this was the case, and that the investigation was conducted thoroughly.  It was completed in a short time scale, and this too had caused Miss C concern, but again we found no suggestion that this had any effect on the quality of the investigation.  She also felt that she should have been given an opportunity to discuss the council’s findings but we found that they had correctly signposted her to us under their complaints procedure, after they completed their investigation. Related reading View Decision Report 201204796 as a PDF (68.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C had had a number of problems with their neighbours, which they believed stemmed from their objections to planning applications made made several years before. The council had investigated other concerns about anti-social behaviour some time before, but this time Mr and Mrs C raised further issues. These were investigated by a council officer, who consulted with the police and interviewed Mr C and Mrs C separately. The officer said he would provide a dossier and seek legal advice within the council. He sought the advice some three months later, and it was provided nine weeks after that. The advice was that the information held did not meet the statutory test for the council to pursue formal action. Mr and Mrs C then wrote to the council's chief executive, complaining about the five month delay in clarifying the council's position. The response (from the deputy chief executive), however, referred back to the original complaints, and ignored two requests for information. Our investigation upheld most of Mr and Mrs C's complaints as we found that the council's response took too long, and was inadequate. We did not uphold their complaint that the council team failed to deal with antisocial behaviour in accordance with council policies and procedures.

Mr C complained about the way the council handled his claim for compensation after he damaged his suit on a protruding screw in a council-owned building. He also complained about their decision to limit the sum they agreed to pay him to the cost of replacing his jacket, rather than the whole suit, about their failure to respond to email correspondence, about the reasons they gave for delay in progressing his claim and said there was a failure to respond to his complaint accurately and promptly. We found that there was a delay in assessing his claim. The reason for this was the delay in receiving witness statements from the local service. Because of this delay, and because they failed to meet their own time targets, we upheld this aspect of his complaint. We found that the council did respond fully, and accurately, to his complaint. However, because they failed to advise him how to progress it to the next stage, and at the final stage failed to meet their own timescales, we also upheld this aspect of his complaint. As, however, the council acknowledged and apologised for both delays, and as they have now introduced a new complaints process, we made no recommendations. Although Mr C was dissatisfied with the amount the council agreed to pay to compensate him, we agreed with the council that the complaints process was not the way to challenge this, as the question of legal liability is one for the courts to consider. Related reading View Decision Report 201300737 as a PDF (11.23 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council took an unreasonable length of time to respond to his complaints and did not adequately investigate and respond to his concerns about the actions of a school with regard to the alleged bullying of his son. He said that he was very concerned about his son's welfare as a result of the alleged incidents. We upheld his complaints, as our investigation found that although the council apologised and gave various reasons for delays, the complaints process took an unacceptably long time to complete. It was only after we contacted them that the council eventually gave a final response, nearly seven months after Mr C first complained. Even then, it did not address all the issues and was incomplete, although they later gave him additional information.

In January 2009, an inquiry reporter decided to uphold a council decision to refuse planning permission to build houses in a long established area of open space behind the homes of Mr and Mrs C and their neighbours. When, in March 2012, the council granted planning consent for residential development of the same site, Mr and Mrs C and their neighbours were unhappy and made nine detailed complaints to the council and then to us. Seven of these related to the report of handling of the later application that council officers presented to members of the council committee. We upheld three of the seven complaints about the report of handling - in relation to failure to refer to a planning advice note and to fully address and consider the implications of the reporter’s dismissal of the appeal on the first application. The other two complaints, which we also upheld, related to a lack of proper evaluation of the loss of open space that implementation of the proposals would entail and unreasonable delay by the council in investigating the complaints.

The council were due to replace the kitchen and bathroom of Mr C's council house as part of a planned modernisation programme. Some years earlier, Mr C had, with the council’s permission, installed an electric shower at the foot of the bath above the taps. Two months before the work began he was visited by a council housing officer and a representative of the contractor. His recollection was that at the visit he was given two choices - a shower worked from a mixer tap at the foot of the bath, or a new electric shower that he would have to pay for. He says he chose the mixer tap arrangement. When the work was carried out, however, an electric shower was installed at the other end (the head) of the bath. Mr C complained that the council did not install the type of shower he had chosen; failed to install the electric shower in the correct position; and failed to respond to his letters to the chief executive. Our investigation found that the council had a contract plan for all bathroom works. This clearly indicates that existing sanitary ware would be replaced in white and that an electric shower and curtain rail would be put in place at the head of the bath. The council confirmed that this would be at no cost to the tenant, and were adamant that no alternatives were offered. From the information provided, it appeared that the council’s intentions may not have been explicitly communicated during the visit, but we did not uphold the first two complaints as there was no evidence that the council failed to comply with Mr C’s choice or that they had installed the shower in the wrong place. We did find, however, that they had taken too long to deal with his complaint and made recommendations.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably refused to carry out work to his bathroom wall despite previously agreeing to do so. The council had told him that the offer of work was being withdrawn because he had made an abusive phone call to a member of staff. Mr C complained that the council had never told him what the abuse consisted of, or when it was meant to have taken place. We upheld Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council did not conduct an adequate investigation into his concerns, and their responses had been confused and at times contradictory. There was also confusion about the possible involvement of a councillor. Council officers were unclear about the policies and procedures to be used when dealing with difficult phone calls, and we found that the withdrawal of the offer of the work was neither proportionate nor reasonable. We also found that the council's record-keeping was inadequate and that there was no proper audit trail of the decision-making process.

Mr C had been a council tenant, but when his tenancy was terminated he was unable to store his belongings. The council had a statutory duty to protect his property as he was considered homeless, so they arranged for this to be packed up and taken into storage. They told him that they would pay the storage costs for him, but he would be liable to repay these when he was able to do so. Mr C was given a new council tenancy some five months later, and the council had the property taken out of storage and delivered to him. They also paid the fees for this, then re-charged all the costs to him. Mr C disputed the charges, saying that they were more than the fees quoted on the agreement, and queried the invoice from the removal firm that delivered the property to him. He had contacted the firm and was quoted a fee of £55 per hour and was told the job would probably only have taken about three hours. The council had charged him £291.50. Our investigation found that the amounts re-charged to Mr C were the amounts the council had paid on his behalf. The agreement made it clear that the fees quoted were based on using one storage unit, but Mr C's property had taken more space than that. Similarly, the invoice from the removal firm added up to four hours work at the rate quoted to Mr C, plus VAT and insurance. It is not for us to decide if the amount charged by the firm was correct and we considered it reasonable for the council to re-charge Mr C for what they had paid on his behalf. We also noted that the legislation covering such matters allows for re-charging. Mr C also complained that some of his property was missing. Some was found when Mr C brought this to the council's attention. Some property was damaged and the council had accepted Mr C's estimate of replacement costs and reduced the amount he owed them by this amount. Some items were not found but did not appear on the inventory taken when Mr C's property was packed up. We could not find out what had hap

Mr C's late mother (Mrs A) was a council tenant before her death, and he complained to us about the way the council had handled a request for his mother's carer to move into the house shortly before his mother died. Although the request appeared to come from his mother, he told us that she had dementia and that the council did not establish if she had the capacity to make this decision when they allowed the carer to move in. He was also unhappy with the way the council handled the situation when, after his mother died, the carer was allowed to succeed to the tenancy. As it was clear that the council knew that Mrs A had dementia, we were concerned that they accepted the request without making certain specific checks. We took the view that this meant they had failed to safeguard the interests of a vulnerable tenant and we upheld this part of the complaint. The council told us that it was impossible to say whether a further check would have changed the decision in this case. They apologised, however, that their procedure was not as robust as it could have been. They agreed to revise their procedures to provide guidance and ensure that in future there would be a home visit and further checks before a carer could move in. We found no evidence, however, that they failed to follow the correct procedure in handling the succession to the tenancy.

Ms C had complained for some time about the antisocial behaviour of her neighbours, including noise and disturbances from them and their frequent visitors, and the council's antisocial behaviour team had opened two files as a result of this. More recently, Ms C had also complained about the untidy and overgrown state of their garden, and other related matters. She told us that the council had not acted on her complaints. We did not find that the council had unreasonably failed to deal with her complaints about the neighbour's antisocial behaviour. Our investigation found that the council had followed their policy and had issued letters of caution, but that this had not progressed to more serious warnings. We did, however, uphold her second complaint, that the council had unreasonably failed to deal with repeated complaints about the garden, as we found that the housing department had not followed their procedure on estate supervision with specific regard to untidy gardens.

One of Mr C's children is severely disabled, and the family home was not suitable for his family's needs. He had for several years been awaiting the offer of a suitable house. When local builders submitted planning applications for part of a new housing association development, Mr C's child was twice assessed by a council occupational therapist for the adaptations that would be needed for one of the new houses to meet their specific needs. These adaptations were to be funded by the council and would be communicated in a particular design brief to the builders. Mr C was provided with a copy of the then current plans, which showed the proposed house to be detached. Mr C attended a meeting with the association in the late summer of 2010, and in response to queries he raised in email correspondence was informed that several of the points could be postponed to a subsequent detailed design stage. After planning consent was given for the development, the plans were amended without further consultation with Mr C or the council's occupational therapist. When Mr C saw the amended plans, he said that these showed a semi-detached house and that there were other significant differences in the proposals. Mr C made two complaints - firstly that the association unreasonably altered the plans, and that this meant that the house would not meet his child's needs; and secondly that the association failed to inform him or consult with him about the amended plans. We did not uphold Mr C's first complaint as there was no unequivocal evidence that the association had instructed the amendments. When they learned that changes had been made, they had rectified matters by instructing further changes to ensure that the house, when completed, would meet Mr C's child's needs. The association agreed, however, that there had been a breakdown of communication with Mr C and so we upheld that complaint and made a recommendation.

Mrs C's daughter and her classmates participated in a swimming lesson given by a council swimming instructor at a local leisure facility managed by a leisure company. Her daughter was asked to repeat a task in front of the class and was left upset. Mrs C and her husband pursued an initial informal complaint, then took the complaint fully through the council's complaints procedures. Our investigation upheld their complaint that the council failed to deal with the complaint properly at the informal stage, but we made no recommendation as the council had recognised the deficiencies in the initial complaints handling, and had put in place several measures to avoid this happening again. We found that the council's handling of the formal complaint had been thorough and transparent and relevant witnesses had been interviewed. Although the timescale in which they responded had exceeded stated targets, on balance we did not find that the council had failed to deal with those complaints in line with their policy. Related reading View Decision Report 201201945 as a PDF (11.06 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C's two children were educated at home. During the academic year 2011/2012, they both attended a course at a local community high school. However, with little notice, the course was withdrawn and there was no alternative provision. Mrs C was later told that community courses were only available to adults and young people over the age of 16. She said this was contrary to her experience as one of her children was aged 14 when attending the course. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably denied her home educated children access to community courses and caused unnecessary confusion to her and her family, as their communication with her about community courses was unclear and inconsistent. Our investigation took into account all the relevant information, including the complaints correspondence and complaints file, the council's policies on education complaints and home education, and relevant sections of the Scottish Government's home education guidance. We found that while the council applied a standard policy with regard to community education, they did not have any documentation about this. It was their intention to develop guidelines to avoid confusion to staff and customers. The council also acknowledged that one of Mrs C's children had previously been allowed to attend a community course in error. The investigation further confirmed that the information given to Mrs C was unclear and confusing, particularly in the absence of a formal written policy.

Mr and Mrs C have lived in their home for many years. It was separated from the next house by a small grassy amenity area. In 2005, a developer applied for planning permission for a housing development on a site behind the existing homes. Mr and Mrs C, along with many others, objected to this. In early 2006, the plans were amended to include footpath links from that development, with one such link running through the amenity area. The council refused the proposals in May 2006, but the developer appealed, and an inquiry reporter approved them, on condition that the developer entered into an agreement to contribute to the footpath links. As they thought at that point that there would be other developments in the area, and to reduce the risk to children walking to school, the council amended primary school catchment areas, in the anticipation that early completion of the housing site would provide part of the footpath link. A road construction consent (RCC) was obtained in 2008, but the recession in house building then prevented the developer from building the houses and providing the footpath link. Faced with the agreed changes to the catchment areas from August 2012, the council's education service proposed that the council divert money from a local budget to provide the footpath link. After securing the necessary agreement from the landowners, in June 2012 the council hand-delivered a letter giving Mr and Mrs C about two weeks' notice of the start of construction of a council-funded footpath next to their home. Our investigation did not uphold the first of Mr and Mrs C's complaints - that the council had failed to notify them of the footpath. We found that they had been aware of the housing development plans in 2005. There was no requirement to notify them of the RCC application, and the works undertaken by the council were similar to the planning consent issued on appeal and did not require further notification. We did uphold a second complaint, about th

Miss C, an owner-occupier, complained to the police and to the council that a council tenant in the flat below was smoking cannabis or allowing cannabis to be smoked and this was diffusing into the common stair and into her flat. As a result of a police visit, a person in the flat admitted he had been smoking cannabis. Our investigation found that after Miss C complained to the council, a housing officer visited the tenant and gave a verbal and written warning about adhering to their conditions of tenancy. While Miss C complained that the council had failed to take proper action and had failed to answer the specific questions she had raised in her letters of complaint, the evidence we saw did not bear this out. Related reading View Decision Report 201202080 as a PDF (10.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs A’'s daughter (Miss A) has severe and complex additional support needs. Her enrolment in a school and experiences there presented challenges for all parties involved. Mrs C, an advocacy worker, complained to the council on Mr and Mrs A's behalf about various actions by the school in relation to their daughter's enrolment. At the end of the council’s complaints procedure, the chief executive accepted that some actions had been unreasonable, and upheld parts of the complaints. However, the chief executive did not accept that these actions represented discrimination, as Mr and Mrs A had alleged. Mr and Mrs A were dissatisfied with aspects of the council’s handling of their complaints and raised this with us. We found that the council had taken an unreasonable length of time to respond, failed to apologise to Mr and Mrs A for the elements that were upheld and failed to advise Mr and Mrs A of the actions taken as a result of their complaints. Mrs C also complained that the council had unreasonably failed to respond to a particular part of the correspondence, but we did not uphold that complaint.

Ms C alleged that while her son was in his first year at primary school he suffered repeated physical assaults from another child. She complained that, despite her formal complaint, the council failed to take appropriate action and she had to move her son to another school. To investigate the complaint, we took all the available information from Ms C and the council into account, including the complaints file and correspondence, and the relevant council policies. Our investigation confirmed that over a period of almost six months there had been numerous incidents. However, Ms C's child was not always the victim - on occasion he had been the perpetrator; or the incidents were accidents or involved numerous children. Each time, there was evidence to show that the council took the matter seriously and took appropriate action with reference to the sanctions and advice in their policy. From the next five months there were no incidents reported, but then an event involving a number of children took place. Ms C's son then made a statement to a teacher that resulted in child protection procedures being invoked. Almost immediately afterwards, Ms C removed her son from the school, and he was later transferred to another. As the evidence showed that the council did act on each reported incident, we did not uphold this complaint. Ms C had also complained to the council about the way they had handled her concerns. We upheld her complaint to us about this, as our investigation showed that the procedures applied in responding did not clearly reflect the council's policy. One reply was inconclusive and other letters appeared to show that the council had investigated matters outwith their control, Similarly, a complaint of bullying was only partially upheld despite clear evidence that it had taken place.

Mrs C complained that a Local Review Board (LRB) set up to consider an appeal against refusal of a planning application was not properly constituted; that the minutes of the LRB meeting did not accurately reflect the what happened at the meeting; that the council did not adequately investigate her complaint about this; and that the council did not take appropriate action on the failings that their investigation found. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the LRB had been properly constituted under transitional arrangements put into place by the council. It took place about a month after an election at which some elected members who were trained to sit on LRBs were not returned to office or had retired. The transitional arrangements allowed all members who were trained to sit on the LRB, regardless of the ward they represented or whether there was more than one representative from a ward. We found that these arrangements were reasonable and that the LRB was both quorate (the required minimum number of people were there) and competent. Mrs C had also expressed concerns that the investigation into her complaint was conducted by a council employee, who might be biased in favour of their employer. Our investigation found the investigation was reasonable and appropriate and found no evidence of bias. We also found that the council took appropriate and robust remedial action where failings were identified. We did, however, uphold the complaint about the minutes of the meeting. These did not adequately reflect the information placed before the LRB or its decision. The meeting considered 14 separate applications, and the background papers ran to over 4,000 pages. The documentation for this particular application accounted for over half those pages, within which were 293 objections either to the original application or to the appeal. These were not indexed and no mention of them was made in the minutes. It was, therefore,

Since Mrs C and her family moved into a council flat, she had complained about noise from a neighbour. After one particular incident, she applied for rehousing, supported by her GP and health visitor. A multi-agency case conference considered the circumstances of her request, but decided not to award social housing points that would have given her higher priority for a move. Mrs C continued to complain about noise and other disturbances. She pursued a formal complaint through the council’s complaints procedures, then complained to us that the council had unreasonably failed to take action on her complaints of anti-social behaviour. Our investigation found that the council had monitored the noise twice, but did not find it to be at levels that constituted a statutory nuisance. An acoustic test found that impact noise insulation levels did not meet current building standards, but as these would have complied at the time the houses were built the council decided to take no action. Mrs C and her husband were made the offer of another property but declined it as unsuitable. We did not uphold Mrs C’s complaint, as our investigation found that the reports of noise had been properly recorded and appropriately investigated. Related reading View Decision Report 201204113 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained on behalf of his family over his dissatisfaction with the council’s investigation into a complaint made about an incident at his daughter’s school sports day. His dissatisfaction was based on his belief that it was partial, questioned the veracity of the family’s account, and did not address the key concerns which had been raised. Our investigation found that Mr C’s complaint had been investigated properly at both stages of the council’s complaints procedure. The council had considered relevant information, including witness statements, and had interviewed Mr C and his wife. The council had concluded that the incident was the result of a misunderstanding, which had been resolved with the apology offered at the time, and took into account that since the event Mr C’s daughter had changed school and was happy with the move. Related reading View Decision Report 201203977 as a PDF (10.97 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018