SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the council’s handling of communal repairs at a tenement in which C owned a property. Extensive work was required following a fire. The council owned the majority of properties in the building and took the lead in arranging and managing the work. During the work to repair the fire damage, extensive dry rot was identified. Work was completed around four years after the fire. The invoice C received from the council for the dry rot works was approximately £15,000 over what C had expected to pay, based on the estimates for work given two years prior. C complained about the council’s management of the repairs, including their communication. We found that the council’s communication with C during the period of works and in respect of the increasing costs was unreasonable. The council also failed to follow their own processes or act in line with their obligations under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. The final invoicing included substantial costs for which C was not liable, and which should not have been included in the invoice. The council also failed to notify C of the costs of an emergency repair to the roof following a storm within a reasonable period of time, resulting in C missing the opportunity to submit an insurance claim for the costs. Overall, we found that the council’s management of communal repairs was unreasonable. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint. We considered that regardless of communication issues and delays, the costs would likely have been incurred and therefore are duly payable by C. However, given the multiple failings in relation to communication and administration, we recommended that the council refund the administration fee to C. C also complained about the council's handling of their complaint. We found that the council’s complaint handling was unreasonable. The council failed to identify C’s expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint, failed to respond within a reasonable timescale or provide timely update

C and their autistic child took up their tenancy, having been offered the property following assessment for priority for allocation. C reported anti-social behaviour that they were experiencing from neighbours to the council. The behaviour ranged from communal areas being untidy and vandalised, to evidence of drug taking, loud noise and aggressive behaviour from neighbours and others entering the block. C was dissatisfied with the action that the council took in response to numerous reports of anti-social behaviour, and they were very concerned about the impact that this was having on their child. C was also dissatisfied with the council’s handling of their application to be allocated another tenancy in a different area, and their refusal to consider sheltered housing given their child's needs. The council responded to C’s concerns explaining that they had responded appropriately to reports of anti-social behaviour and did not uphold C's complaint. The council also explained that they considered that C’s initial allocation of housing was appropriate and in accordance with policy. We found that the council could not evidence that they consistently responded to C’s concerns of anti-social behaviour inline with their policy and upheld this complaint on this basis. With respect to the complaints on the assessment of C’s housing application, we found that this had been assessed in accordance with policy and did not uphold the complaint.

C complained that the council and school staff failed to reasonably respond or act when C told them about domestic violence witnessed by their child (A). C said that the council had breached their duty of care and Child Protection obligations in respect of A by ignoring C’s concerns about the domestic abuse that they were suffering and failed to provide A with appropriate support. The council did not uphold C’s complaint. They considered that C and their family had received an appropriate level of support in line with the council’s policies and procedures. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that there was a failure by school staff to reasonably respond to, or act upon, C’s reports of domestic violence witnessed by A. We found that staff should have contacted the council’s Joint Child Protection Team for advice and guidance following C’s initial disclosure of domestic abuse. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint. We also identified a concern that council staff may not fully recognise what constitutes domestic violence. It encompasses more than just physical violence and includes a range of behaviour as outlined in relevant legislation. We provided the council with feedback on this point.

C complained about communication from the council's social work department relating to C’s involvement in the Looked After Child (LAC) review process. C held parental rights and responsibilities for their child. C raised concerns about not being invited to attend a review meeting and not receiving a legible copy of a relevant report in advance of the meeting. In their response to the complaint, the council explained a watermark was incorrectly applied in the wrong font colour and apologised for this error. We found that C was reasonably informed of the arrangements for the LAC review meeting and how they could contribute to it. In the month prior to the review meeting, the council’s Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) contacted C. The role of an IRO is to work autonomously to manage and chair LAC reviews for children who are looked after and accommodated by the council. The IRO told C by email that there would be no option for C to attend the LAC review meeting, and C could submit their views via a proforma. C received a copy of the relevant report prior to the review meeting. We found that the council had reasonably acknowledged, apologised for and rectified the error of the incorrectly applied watermark. Overall, we found that the provision of the relevant report, proforma that invited C’s views and email correspondence demonstrated that the council intentionally communicated with C in line with their responsibilities to seek the views of C as a person holding parental rights and responsibilities, in line with the relevant legislation and the council’s procedure. On this basis, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202302784 as a PDF (24.58 KB) Updated: October 23, 2024

C complained about the council’s handling of a planning application. C’s next door neighbour made a retrospective application for planning permission for the erection of a garden room/store and timber fencing to the boundary at the rear of the property. This followed an earlier enforcement enquiry in respect of the garden room structure being erected without the necessary permission in place. C objected to the planning application through a solicitor on the basis that it constituted overdevelopment and would adversely impact neighbours’ residential amenity and did not contribute towards quality place making. Planning permission was granted with no conditions attached. We took independent advice from a planning specialist. We were satisfied that the assessment of the impact of the fence was an issue of discretion and that carrying out site visits and allowing additional comments/objections to the planning application were matters of planning judgement. Whilst we found that the council did reach the right planning decision, we considered that there had been a lack of clarity and explanation and that the council’s calculations in relation to the coverage of rear curtilage in the Report of Handling were ambiguous and are not in line with the relevant guidance. On balance, we upheld the complaint.

C complained that the council had failed to follow the correct procedures for issuing a building warrant to a neighbouring property. C had raised issues due to noise ingress to their property, which C attributed to alterations to the approved design for the neighbouring extension. The council acknowledged that an amendment to the building warrant should have been sought and apologised for this. They noted that the original officer who dealt with the case had left the council, but a review of the works carried out had satisfied the council that the works complied with building standards and that had an amendment to the building warrant been sought, it would have been granted. We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified building standards adviser. We found that the actions taken by the council were reasonable. The council were acting within their discretionary powers by determining that the building work carried out met the relevant standards. The council correctly identified that an amendment to the warrant should have been sought and had taken the appropriate steps to address this. Therefore, we have upheld this part of C's complaint but have made no further recommendations due to the appropriate action already taken. Related reading View Decision Report 202100411 as a PDF (24.37 KB) Updated: February 21, 2024

C complained that the social work service unreasonably failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of their grandchild (A)'s parents. They also complained about the level of support provided to the parents. In particular, C complained that there was too much focus on the past behaviours of the parents, and that social work had unreasonably planned for A to be adopted prior to their birth. C also said a social worker showing bias towards the parents, and that social work had interfered with a housing transfer application. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the assessment of the parents undertaken by social work had been reasonable, noting that the relevant guidance required for the past behaviours of parents to be considered as part of a wider comprehensive assessment to determine future risks to a child. We also found the plan to move A to the adoption register had occurred over a period of time, and we did not find evidence to support C's view that it had been planned prior to A's birth. We considered the overall level of support provided to the parents had been reasonable, including in relation to the housing transfer application. In relation to C's complaint about the social worker, we did not find evidence to support that a full investigation of this point had taken place, and we provided feedback to the council on this matter. Overall, we considered that the assessment and support provided to the parents by social work had been reasonable. We did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 202110675 as a PDF (24.45 KB) Updated: October 18, 2023

C complained to the council about various aspects of Social Work Services (SWS) involvement with their children. C complained that SWS failed to invite C to a 72-hour Looked After Child (a looked after child is a child under the care of the council) review. C further complained that at the review, SWS had not given appropriate consideration to the children's care planning, and had failed to correctly follow the Section 25 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 in placing their children with a family member. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that SWS had made reasonable attempts to contact C to advise them of the review meeting. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We found that information presented at the meeting was lacking in respect of the children's own views, and SWS had failed to fully document their discussions with one of C's children. However, we considered that appropriate consideration had been given to care planning for the children. Therefore on balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint but provided feedback to the council about the importance of ensuring accurate recording of social work activities, including seeking views, to inform care planning. We also found that although C was in disagreement with the placement, and the views of the children themselves had been lacking, C's estranged partner had authority under section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to agree to the voluntary arrangement. We found SWS had followed best practice in ensuring C's estranged partner was appropriately supported in their decision-making regarding the children's care planning, and although there had been a delay in signing the section 25 paperwork, the placement had been valid. Therefore on balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. C further complained that SWS had unreasonably presented at their home during COVID-19 restrictions. We found that SWS had failed to follow their own COVID

C complained about the way that the council had dealt with their reports of noise in their home, and the way in which the council had handled their complaint about this. The council had previously accepted numerous failings in connection with the issues raised by C. The council acknowledged failures with respect to communication and confirmed they would carry out further investigations and undertake works to address the soundproofing in the property, particularly relating to the transference of noise from a lower level flat. After a period of a few months, C made a further complaint to the council about failures to take appropriate action and keep C updated with respect to efforts to proceed with soundproofing. C was dissatisfied with the council's response and brought their complaint to our office. We found that the council took reasonable actions with respect to identifying an appropriate action plan, in installing acoustic underlay, as a first step in attempting to address the noise issues. However, restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which were outwith the council's control, resulted in delays in the council being able to carry out the proposed works. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint regarding delay. However, we found that the council unreasonably failed to communicate with C throughout the lockdown period during 2020 and therefore failed to keep C appropriately updated as to the plans in place to undertake the works. We upheld this complaint.

C complained that the council had failed to provide reasonable support to meet their child's (A) educational and emotional needs at school. We noted that the council's procedures regarding their Staged Intervention Framework do not set out specifically what steps will be taken when concerns about a child's learning are reported or what stage of intervention should be applied. The procedures set out the type of support that may be provided. We considered that it would be a discretionary matter for the council regarding the stage of intervention required and the support to provide. We noted that the support that A received appeared to be consistent with the council's procedures. We did not find evidence of an administrative or procedural failings regarding the support provided to A. In light of this, we did not uphold C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201909307 as a PDF (24.09 KB) Updated: May 19, 2021

C communicated with the council regarding their dissatisfaction about the council’s actions in locating a communal bin store and removing fencing and a gate at a property containing flats that both they and the council owned. The council did not formally handle this communication as a complaint for several years. Following consideration of the matter through their complaint procedure, the council confirmed that C wished them to reinstate the fence and gate and relocate the bin store. However, C did not consider that the council had carried out this action within a reasonable timescale. C was also dissatisfied with the response the council gave to further complaints they submitted several months later regarding the suggested works programme the council had provided to them and the replacement of a different gate at the property. We found that there were unreasonable delays in the council responding to C’s contacts, that the council unreasonably failed to deal with C’s complaints under their complaints handling procedure for several years, that the council unreasonably failed to advise C of revised timescales for responding to their complaints when they were considered under the complaints handling procedure, and that the council unreasonably failed to provide C with meaningful explanations of how they reached their decisions on C’s complaint or clarify their position regarding the title deeds to C’s property. We also found that the council unreasonably failed to relocate the bin store or reinstate the fence and gate within a reasonable timescale or fulfil C’s request to be consulted and agree plans before they were undertaken. We also noted that the council unreasonably described the information provided to C as “details” of the proposed work, did not reasonably investigate C’s complaint about the replacement of a communal gate, unreasonably failed to update C regarding delays to their response to the second complaint some months later, and did not administer an exte

C raised a number of concerns about the council’s handling of a planning application. C considered that the planning service failed to provide an appropriate opportunity for the community to comment on changes made by the applicant after the application was submitted. C also considered that the council failed to ensure that the application referred to the correct class use. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found hat the council had acted reasonably at all stages with regard to the processing of the planning application in the lead up to determination of the planning application in question. We did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint. C was also concerned that the council’s response to their complaint contained inaccurate information. Having considered the relevant documentation, we did not identify an inaccuracy in the council’s response. Accordingly, we did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201905237 as a PDF (24.12 KB) Updated: December 16, 2020

C complained about the social work service provided to their family by the council. A social worker first had contact with the family after the police charged C's child (A) with an offence. Social work, as part of a multi-agency group, contributed to risk management plans. Under these plans, A's contact with peers and access to school and extracurricular activities was limited. C complained that the risk plans were too restrictive and disproportionately impacted on A's educational attainment, wellbeing and social relationships. The council did not uphold C's complaint. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the social work service acted reasonably in the course of making and managing the restrictions. We found evidence of reasonable support and engagement with the family and social workers being responsive to the concerns, including reducing the restrictions when it was considered appropriate. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. C also raised concern that the service inappropriately shared confidential information about A with a health professional. We were not critical of the council's rationale for sharing the information. However, having reviewed the relevant guidance on information sharing, we considered that, before sharing the information, the council should have informed A's family of the intention to share information and provided reasons for this. We also found that the council's record-keeping of the information disclosure was insufficiently detailed. We upheld the complaint and made recommendations. Finally, C was unhappy with the way the council handled their complaint. In particular, C raised concern that there was an unreasonable delay in responding and a conflict of interest given the involvement of a manager in the investigation. We found that the council took reasonable steps to extend the timescale to 40 working days, although it appeared they then missed the revised timescale by a small numbe

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable enforcement action over breaches of planning control by the operator of a café. Mrs C said that the council had been aware of these breaches for an extended period of time and that the breaches included a failure to comply with the conditions of the café's planning permission. Mrs C said this was unreasonable, and that the council had failed to respond adequately to her complaints. We received independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had been aware of the breach of planning control for an extended period. The council had correctly stated they had a broad discretion to determine whether it was in the public interest to take enforcement action. However, we noted that there was no evidence of the enforcement investigations undertaken by the council, nor was there any evidence that they had assessed the progress being made by the café to regularise the planning situation. The council had, therefore, failed to comply with its own planning enforcement charter. We found that the council had acted unreasonably by failing to record its planning enforcement activity. It had also failed to respond appropriately to Mrs C's complaint. We upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Mr C complained about the increased number of waste and recycling bins which are being stored on the pavement of his street. He said that the council were failing to address the issue. He asked for the council to have a formal policy in place for bin removal and to explain why his request to access reports/correspondence relating to this issue was not upheld. The council said a new mixed recycling service meant that there are more bins on the street and residents have told them that they have nowhere to store them. The council said that there is no quick solution to this and that they would be happy to explore any suggested options. We found that the council were unable to provide evidence that they had consulted with residents about the issue of bin storage. They were also unable to provide evidence that they had carried out any assessment of alternative bin provision, such as communal disposal options. We also found that the council had not carried out the actions that they had said it would in response to Mr C's complaint, such as identifying and removing unused bins from the street. The council had already taken steps to improve record-keeping and to ensure that contact with the public was properly recorded. The council's responses to Mr C and to this office could not be supported by evidence other than staff recollection. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Mrs C became an informal carer to her two grandchildren when they were removed from their mother's care at the council's request. Mrs C complained to the council about the support they provided to her as an informal carer. Mrs C said that she did not feel the council took seriously the concerns she was raising about the children's wellbeing and behaviour, that they did not recognise her own personal circumstances, such as her own health needs and that they delayed in providing financial assistance. The council explained that Mrs C received support from a family support worker and that a nursery placement was provided; however they acknowledged that there was a delay in providing financial assistance and in arranging the nursery placement due to it being in another local authority area. We took independent social work advice. The adviser queried the appropriateness of the statutory powers that the council chose to use when they decided to remove the children from their mother's care. While we noted that Mrs C received support from a family support worker and advice by telephone, we considered it was unreasonable that the allocated social worker did not visit Mrs C and the children until almost three weeks after they were placed in her care. We concluded that the council failed to take a proactive approach to planning the support Mrs C might require and overall, they failed to provide appropriate and timely support. We upheld the complaint and made recommendations for learning and improvement.

Ms C complained that the council failed to investigate and act on her reports of antisocial behaviour in her building. We found that Ms C phoned the council a number of times to report what she felt to be antisocial behaviour relating to a neighbour. The council gave Ms C advice on what to do about reporting specific incidents of antisocial behaviour when they were actually happening. When Ms C escalated her concerns, the council investigated her reports of antisocial behaviour by discussing the situation with Ms C, gathering evidence from other relevant parties, and assessing that evidence to determine that, in the council's view, there was no antisocial behaviour. While Ms C disagreed with that view, her disagreement was not, of itself, evidence of an administrative failing by the council. Ms C also complained about the council's handling of her complaint. We found that the council's handling of her complaint was in keeping with their complaints handling procedure, as they investigated and responded to the key points of her complaint. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201707165 as a PDF (23.82 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018

Mrs C complained in her own right, and on behalf of four other parents, that a head teacher failed to follow relevant procedures after an incident involving scissors at a school, and about the council's handling of complaints about the incident. We found that the council's Anti-Weapon/Knife Crime Policy stated that certain actions were to be taken on the day of an incident, including the weapon being confiscated and placed in a locked cabinet; the police being notified; and senior management and specific council staff being notified. The evidence showed that none of these actions were taken on the day of the incident. We also found that the council's responses to the complaints did not reasonably reflect the findings of the council's investigation, and did not include an apology for the police not being notified on the day of the incident. In addition, the council's handling of the complaints was not completely in line with the complaints handling procedure. We upheld Mrs C's complaints. We found that the council had already taken steps to remedy the failings identified and so we did not make any further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201706198 as a PDF (11.1 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. He complained that the council had not ensured that there was accurate information to determine the application, that they had not considered the appropriate landscape policy, that they did not require additional public consultation after a change and did not ensure that the applicant adhered to planning conditions. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had accurate information to determine the application and had considered the appropriate landscape policy. Councils can exercise their own judgement when deciding whether additional public consultation is required. The council also have discretion on how to respond to reports of breach of planning control. We found that the council provided a clear explanation of their actions in their complaint response. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201800070 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a report of statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the EPA), which he made due to noise coming from a council owned car park adjacent to his home. The council had told him that they did not consider that the nature of the behaviour fell under the remit of the EPA. Mr C was not satisfied with the explanation provided for this and brought his complaint to us. We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. They considered that the council's position was unreasonable, confirming that there was a statutory duty to investigate any complaint of statutory nuisance, decide whether a statutory nuisance was occurring and, if it was, serve an abatement notice. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that the council have now informally investigated the noise report.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application for a waste management facility. Mr C believed that the council had not followed relevant legislation and procedures in dealing with the application as an urgent matter at a meeting of the full council and had unreasonably allowed costs and the business case to be introduced as material considerations in the determination of the application. Following the council's decision to approve the application, Mr C corresponded with a senior member of council staff who he considered had unreasonably refused to answer his questions. We found that, as required by the relevant legislation, in the minutes of the council meeting the council had recorded the reasons for the convenor being of the opinion that the application should be considered as a matter of urgency and that the procedures Mr C had referred to had not been relevant in the circumstances of the consideration of the application. We found that it was reasonable, in the context of the application, for costs to have been introduced as material considerations. We could see no evidence that the business case had been introduced as a material consideration. We also considered that the senior member of staff's response to Mr C had effectively answered his questions. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201609303 as a PDF (11.15 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C owned a flat in a tenement building. The council also owned flats in the building, and Mr C believed that a council tenant had damaged the communal front door and entry system. Mr C thought that the council were responsible for repairing the damage and covering the costs. He complained to us that the council had unreasonably charged him for a share of the repair costs. We found that no one actually witnessed who was responsible for the damage. The council explained to Mr C that, unless there were any witnesses, it was very difficult to prove who caused the damage. We saw no evidence, such as legislation or policy, to support Mr C's belief that the council were responsible for paying for damage to communal areas that was allegedly caused by one of their tenants. All owners have duties and responsibilities in respect of repairs and maintenance of shared parts of property, normally set out in title deeds. As owners, both Mr C and the council likely shared responsibility for communal areas. Given this, it was reasonable for the council to conclude that private owners, such as Mr C, should bear a proportion of the repair costs and be invoiced accordingly. We saw no evidence that Mr C was not responsible for paying a share of common repairs. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201705473 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C complained that the council failed to reasonably respond to concerns she raised about dampness and mould in her property. Mrs C said that throughout the time she resided there, she and her family had to endure intolerable living conditions which affected their health. She also said that furniture and personal possessions were ruined. Mrs C and her family were later relocated to another property. Mrs C also complained that the council failed to carry out appropriate repairs to the property. We found that, in a number of areas, the council's response to Mrs C's concerns about dampness and mould in the property were of a reasonable standard based on the evidence available. However, we considered that the council could have given clearer information about initial works carried out to the property before Mrs  C moved in and that there was delay in the information provided to her about making an insurance claim. The council acknowledged that the explanation for the source of the damp and mould in the property had changed over the course of their correspondence and there was a lack of a co-ordinated response from the council teams concerned. The council also acknowledged that this had led to a delay in responding to Mrs C's complaint. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. However, we considered that the council had appropriately acknowledged and apologised to Mrs C for the failings in responding to her concerns and that they had taken action to address this. In relation to Mrs C concerns about appropriate repairs, we found that there was evidence that the council took appropriate steps to ascertain the problems at the property and establish what repairs were necessary. We considered it was reasonable for the council to rely on the professional judgement of their officers, who considered that the problems were being caused by condensation, rather than water ingress. We found that the council's actions to address the damp and mould issues we

Mr C, who is an advocacy and support worker, complained on behalf of his client (Ms B) that the council unreasonably failed to provide her child (child A) with a Self Directed Support package (SDS, a package that allows individuals to choose how they receive their social care and support). Ms B was informed that it was likely child A would qualify for SDS but at the end of the eligibility assessment it was determined that they did not meet the criteria. Ms B was told by her social worker that the eligibility criteria had changed and child A did not meet these requirements. Ms B complained to the council about the change in criteria and that her expectations were unfairly raised. The council responded by explaining that the criteria had not changed and that this was incorrect information provided by the social worker. They also noted that the social worker did explain that any award given is always dependent on the outcome of the assessment. Ms B was unhappy with this response and Mr C brought her complaint to us. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the criteria had not changed and that the social worker involved appeared to have misunderstood the content of an email from the team manager about eligibility criteria. We noted that the council had acknowledged this failing and apologised to Ms B for providing her with incorrect information. We found that child A had been assessed appropriately and against the SDS eligibility criteria set out in the council's guidance. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we were concerned that Ms B's expectations of the SDS outcome had been unfairly raised and we asked the council to reflect upon this for future learning. Related reading View Decision Report 201702734 as a PDF (11.4 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

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