SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that the council had failed to keep their child (A) safe whilst in the council’s care and that A had been inappropriately placed in secure accommodation. A had been in care in a number of different settings, including secure units. Some were run by third party care providers or the NHS. It was accepted by the council that A had been able to harm themselves whilst in care and that A had been placed in secure accommodation when the council was not legally entitled to do so. The council said that some incidents had occurred despite the best efforts of staff to keep A safe. We took independent advice from a registered social worker. We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to try and ensure A’s safety, and had worked with third parties to ensure incidents were fully reviewed. They had also taken reasonable steps to prevent a reoccurrence of the error that led to A being accommodated. We did not find communication with C had been unreasonable given C’s restrictions on the kind of communication that they would accept from the council. We did not uphold these aspects of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202302482 as a PDF (24.31 KB) Updated: December 18, 2024

C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to follow their own enforcement process and relevant planning guidance in response to an alleged breach of planning condition/s in respect of two sites. In responding to the complaint, the council acknowledged that breaches at the sites had occurred and highlighted the discretionary nature of planning enforcement. As such, the council considered resolution of the breaches through informal negotiation had, in the first instance, been an appropriate approach rather than formal enforcement action. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that council’s approach to securing compliance with the planning conditions was in line with their usual enforcement process and national guidance, with no evidence of undue delay or inaction on the council’s part at the time of our investigation. We also found that the council’s decision to engage in negotiations to remedy the planning breaches, rather than to pursue formal enforcement action, was a decision that they were entitled to take. For these reasons, we did not uphold C’s complaint. However, we did draw the council’s attention to their own Enforcement Charter which sets out the principles for effective enforcement action, specifically that: negotiation to remedy a breach should be pursued provided an appropriate solution can be achieved in a timely manner. As some of the breaches had not been remedied at the time of this investigation, we suggested that the council may wish to consider setting a timescale by which formal enforcement action would be taken. Related reading View Decision Report 202110015 as a PDF (24.56 KB) Updated: May 22, 2024

C complained about the council's drainage assessment for a planning application. They said it only considered the likely impact of flooding on the planning site, with no Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) being undertaken to determine the potential off-site impact of excess drainage on the surrounding area, or downstream from the development site. C advised of there being a noticeable increase of water draining from the site and flooding on completion of the first of the three planned plots, and they complained about the longer term impact on the surrounding pathways including of a bridge which was C's only route of access to their home. The council's response to C's complaint advised that there had been no known problem with flooding in the local area and that they had referred to SEPA flood maps to inform their decision on the level of assessment required for the application. As flooding was not a known problem in the area, there was no requirement to undertake an FRA for the planning application in keeping with the policies in place at the time. The council also advised any possible solution involving third party land would be a civil matter and not one which the council would pursue. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had reasonably considered the impact of excess drainage on the area surrounding the planning site in keeping with the guidance. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202102930 as a PDF (24.47 KB) Updated: August 16, 2023

C’s child (A), was a pupil at a school in the council’s area. C said that A experienced bullying and a sexual assault by another pupil at the school, resulting in changes to A’s behaviour, anxiety and distress to the extent that A could no longer attend. Following discussions with the council, it was agreed that C could apply for A to attend a new school, outside of their local area. C complained about school 1’s handling of A’s support needs and their response to A’s disclosure about the alleged sexual assault and events stemming from this. C also complained about the council’s failure to arrange transport for A to the new school, which C said had been discussed as part of the decision to apply for a place there. C raised a number of complaints with the council regarding their concerns, including that the council had unreasonably contacted Police Scotland regarding the actions of C’s partner (B). C did not consider that the council responded reasonably to the points that they raised. We accepted the council’s position that MAAP (Multi-agency assurance panel) meetings would not have been required over the relevant period. We also found that there was clear evidence of the school assessing A’s needs and putting in place reasonable measures to support them. We did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint. Overall, we found that the school appropriately recorded A’s disclosure of sexual assault, instigated the involvement of relevant third parties to ensure that the matter was investigated properly, communicated and collaborated well with A and their family to arrange support for A and to explain why there were limitations to the action that they were able to take. Given the circumstances the school had to work with, we are satisfied that they proposed a range of supports that gave A options for safe places to go should they feel threatened. Whilst we acknowledge C’s view that these arrangements did not eliminate the risk to A, overall, we found that the school’

C complained that the council failed to provide support to them and their child (A), who had a severe and debilitating mental illness, and that the council unreasonably failed to respond to all of their concerns. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. In relation to the council’s failure to provide support to C and A, we found that there were unreasonable delays by the council at each stage of this case. We found that there appeared to be a lack of appropriate management oversight of the case, and a lack of follow up to ensure the best possible outcome for A was met. We also found that the overall communication with C was poor. In relation to the council’s failure to respond to all of C’s concerns, we found that the actions which the allocated social worker said that they would undertake to progress the case had led C not to make a complaint. We found that the council’s complaint response lacked detail and clarity as to what went wrong and how this could have been avoided. In particular there should have been a clearer acknowledgement and explanation as to why their own guidelines on timescales were not adhered to. We also found that the council failed to fully acknowledge the impact on C, A and their family from those delays and that if the council considered it was not possible or appropriate to issue a joint response on behalf of the council and other partnership organisations, the reason(s) why should have been explained to C and C should have been signposted accordingly. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

C complained to the council about the way in which they had handled their reports about anti-social behaviour by C's neighbours. C also complained about how the council had managed the situation once C had been offered a housing transfer to remove them from the situation. The council investigated and responded to C's complaints, however C and their advocates continued to complain to the council about matters which were considered closed following the local complaint investigation. We found that the steps taken by the council to resolve C's complaint were reasonable. On recognising C's vulnerabilities, and it being unlikely the dispute between the neighbours would be resolved, we found that the subsequent handling of C's housing transfer was also reasonable. During our investigation it was noted that the council had invoked their Unacceptable Actions Policy in principle in relation to one of C's advocates. However, as they had indicated that they would not be contacting the council again, the advocate was not formally notified they were being managed in line with this policy. We gave feedback to the council on this matter, noting that complainants and their advocates should be informed when their behaviour is considered unhelpful and challenging to ensure that they have the opportunity to engage more meaningfully. Overall, we found that the actions taken by the council were reasonable and we did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 202008887 as a PDF (24.46 KB) Updated: May 24, 2023

C submitted objections to an application for the erection of a house close to the boundary of their property on the grounds of overlooking. The council produced a report of handling which included their responses to C’s concerns. The application was approved subject to conditions including a condition relating to the interests of C’s residential amenity. When the development was begun, C was concerned that the overlooking issue remained. C contacted the council advising of their concerns and the council requested the relevant condition to require a fence to be erected along part of the boundary line. C raised complaints with the council highlighting specific concerns with the report. The council responded advising that they considered the report had given reasonable consideration to the matters raised. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. C complained that the report contained material errors and grossly understated the extent to which their property would be overlooked. We found that certain key information was not included in the council’s assessment of the potential for overlooking, that insufficient attention was given to the height difference between the two properties and the close proximity of C’s property to the proposed house, and that the assessment of the existing vegetation and trees was inaccurate and that these could be considered a material error in the report. We found that available evidence should have highlighted to the council that there would be significant overlooking from the proposed house and that measures should have been taken to mitigate this either through conditions to retain the natural screening, or changes to the positioning of the proposed house. We also found that the requirement to build a fence was unlikely to address all of the overlooking issues. We found that overlooking from the proposed house was foreseeable and that the report failed to recognise this or to include measures to mitigate the impact o

C complained that the council failed to properly administer a grants administration process. C also complained that the council failed to handle their complaint properly, by appointing an individual who was directly involved in the complaint as the complaints officer. The council said that C had previously been made a grant offer, which had been extended. They had then been offered a further extension, but C had not felt able to accept this. We found that the council had followed its procedures correctly. The decision on C's grant had been made by an officer operating under delegated authority. This was in line with the terms of reference for the project board which administered the grants. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. In relation to complaints handling, the council said that they were entitled to appoint the investigating officer for C's complaint. In their view, the officer appointed had the greatest knowledge of the issues under investigation. We found that the council's explanation that the investigating officer was not named in C's complaint was irrelevant. The investigating officer was directly involved in the decision C was complaining about. C had raised this with the council, but it had not been addressed. We found that C's complaint had been handled unreasonably and upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

C complained that the council's handling of reports of bullying of C's child was unreasonable. The council said that the school had taken C's complaints seriously and acted in line with appropriate guidance and policies. Restorative measures had been taken to attempt to resolve the conflict between the children concerned. The council acknowledged that punitive measure may have been preferred by parents and that their approach may have, therefore, been frustrating. Moreover, the council were limited about the amount of information that could be given to C because of confidentiality issues involving another child. We found evidence to show that action had been taken in line with the council's stated policy. There was no evidence to show that incidents involving C's child were ongoing and occurring and after consideration, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201901899 as a PDF (24.12 KB) Updated: May 19, 2021

C complained that the council did not reasonably assess their application for a Blue Badge (a badge issued to disabled drivers for display on their windscreens, indicating entitlement to specific parking privileges). C applied for a Blue Badge as they suffer from fibromyalgia, amongst other conditions, but noted that due to the variable nature of their condition, it was difficult to answer the questions in the council's application form and considered that they should have received an in-person mobility assessment. C's application for a Blue Badge was refused and the decision to refuse was upheld on review. We found that there was not sufficient evidence for the council to have reasonably assessed C's application in line with The Blue Badge Scheme (Scotland) Code of Practice, and therefore did not adequately demonstrate that a clear and robust decision was made on C's eligibility as the result of the desk-based assessment. We also found they did not explain their decision to refuse C's application in line with the Code of Practice. As a result, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint. C also complained that they did not received a reasonable response to their complaint from the council. We found that, while the council conducted an appropriate level of investigation into C's complaints, they failed to properly identify, and therefore adequately address, the crux of C's complaints in their responses. We also found that C was not contacted when the complaint response was delayed, which was not in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

C was on a Compulsory Supervision Order (CSO) and in the care of their grandparents. When C became a care leaver, C complained to the council that they failed to provide the appropriate Throughcare and Aftercare. C said that the council wrongly advised that C was not entitled to any financial support and that they failed to implement a support system. The council said that C did not always respond to social work contact, and following C’s complaint, they identified they had misunderstood the changes to their responsibilities with regards to financial assistance for care leavers. We took independent social work advice. We found that the council incorrectly identified C’s status as not being an eligible young person in terms of Section 29 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 from the outset. This resulted in C not being provided with access to certain services. We also found there was a delay in putting in place a Pathway Plan. While the council did take steps to backdate a financial payment to C, we considered that they should have backdated the payment further to the point when C first contacted the service to ask for assistance. We upheld the complaint.

Ms C was concerned about the support they received from the Children and Families Social Work Team regarding concerns about their child (Child A), particularly following Child A running away from the family home. We took independent social work advice. We found that: social work did not act appropriately on a Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) referral from a GP; no call was made to a neighbouring social work office to investigate Child A's living situation; there was no closing summary to explain why it was considered appropriate to close the case to social work; the social worker in training did not appear to have been regularly supervised by a manager; and the council's own investigation did not identify the failings in the support provided to Ms C and Child A. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

C complained that the council failed to take appropriate action in response to reports of bullying of their children (Child A and Child B) at primary school. C said that the reports of bullying were not investigated appropriately and the council denied that many of them occurred. We considered both C's and the council's records of events, the school incident book, copies of emails between C and the council, and the school's anti-bullying policies. Whilst we recognised that the case was one that had been difficult for all involved, we found that the council had not always appropriately logged incidents in the incident book in line with their policy. We also found that on some occasions, though the school investigated incidents, they did not communicate with C regarding the investigations. Finally, we found that there appeared to have been several reports of incidents where there was no evidence they were investigated. On this basis, we were unable to conclude that the council had taken action in line with their anti-bullying policy and we upheld this aspect of the complaint. C also complained about the council's communication during the complaint process. Having reviewed the correspondence, we found that the council corresponded appropriately with C, and handled the complaints in line with the complaints process. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

C, an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) who was a single parent who provided the majority of the care for their child (B). B had significant support needs and required 2:1 and sometimes 3:1 care. A employed an additional carer through B's Self Directed Support (SDS) allowance. A submitted a complaint to the council in relation to the support that they provided to help A care for B and for A's opportunities for respite. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that while the initial support provision for B was reasonable, when their hours of support were reduced there was a lack of transparency or reasonable explanation in the documentation for how the council came to the decision. This was unreasonable. There was also a lack of a Multi-Agency Action Planning Meetings (MAAPM) assessments until a considerable time after B moved into the council area. We found that the council failed to provide reasonable support to B. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Secondly, we found that more action should have been taken to look for appropriate respite care for B to allow A time away from their caring role. We found that it would have been reasonable for the council to have prioritised arranging further carer time. Overall, we found that the council failed to provide reasonable support to A as carer for B. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C complained about the council's response to his reports about the high electricity usage at his property. Following our enquiries, the council acknowledged that there was a note within their records to fit an E10 timer at Mr C's property which was not actioned and would have resulted in additional cost to Mr C. The council said they were willing to offer Mr C a letter of apology and compensation. Mr C accepted this as a resolution to his complaint and the complaint was closed on that basis. Related reading View Decision Report 201810874 as a PDF (23.54 KB) Updated: October 23, 2019

Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable level of housing support. Mr C lives in sheltered accommodation and had experienced some significant problems with his property since moving there. Mr C said that the Sheltered Housing Officer (SHO) was not on site enough and felt that he should not have to pay the housing support charge. After we became involved, the council met with Mr C to try to resolve his complaint, and provided apologies for the problems he had experienced with his tenancy. In their response to our enquiry, the council said that a breakdown of the care and support charges was clearly itemised on the Tenancy Agreement Mr C had signed. They also explained that the SHO was not on site all of the time but should be available to respond on the telephone if called upon. They also said that when Mr C moved into sheltered housing he requested not to have contact with a SHO. Based on the available evidence, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C had also complained about the tone of some of the council's complaint correspondence. While we acknowledged that Mr C was upset by some of the content of the correspondence, we noted that the council are entitled to seek to limit communication where a matter has already exhausted their complaints process. We found that the council's handling of the complaint had been reasonable and therefore, did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we considered that some of their email correspondence with Mr C could have been more sensitively worded and we fed this back to the council. Related reading View Decision Report 201802334 as a PDF (24.08 KB) Updated: August 21, 2019

Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow appropriate policies and procedures after an incident involving her child in the playground at school. We took independent advice from a social worker in relation to the council's handling of matters. We found that the council had acted appropriately immediately after the incident. However, we found that in the period that followed there had been significant failings in the way things were handled. Contrary to GIRFEC principles (Getting it Right for Every Child - the nationwide policy which puts the child at the centre of decision-making and ensures their views are heard), there was a clear failure to involve the child, or take account of their clearly stated views about what had happened to them. The child had written to the council with their concerns about what might happen next, and what would make them feel safe to return to school, and this letter went unacknowledged. We also found failings in communication with Mrs C. In line with council policy, a Lead Professional should have been nominated when other agencies became involved. The Lead Professional would have been a single point of contact for Mrs C, and would have helped to ensure there was clearer communication and management of expectations. We found there was no clear communication or co-ordination between agencies, which would have heightened the family's anxiety. In light of these failings, we upheld the complaint.

Ms C complained that the council had failed to respond adequately to complaints about an unauthorised traveller site in her area. Ms C also said that the council's complaint response was inaccurate and that the council had lied about taking eviction proceedings against the travellers. We found the council had acted in line with their policies and that there were not grounds for acting to move the travellers on. When the unauthorised site was causing a public nuisance, we found that the council did begin proceedings. We also found that the council's complaint response was not clearly worded, but that it was not inaccurate. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201708910 as a PDF (10.84 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had not taken action against their tenants who he suspected were operating a business from the property, in contravention of the tenancy agreement. The council responded noting that they had carried out visits to the tenant's property and, whilst they had concerns, there was not sufficient evidence available with respect to the allegations regarding a business. Mr C was not satisfied with the response and brought his complaint to our office. We found that the council had taken steps to investigate concerns about the activities of the tenants. This included liaising with neighbours, Police Scotland, Environmental Services and Trading Standards with respect to the activities of the tenant. The council followed up on concerns with the tenant, issuing formal warnings where they considered it was appropriate. They chose to manage the situation with the tenants, but also continued to act on concerns by neighbours. Whilst we considered there was some delay in the council concluding their investigations, we considered that, given the nature of the investigations required, the delay was not unreasonable. We concluded that the council reasonably followed their processes and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201608566 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application which proposed the erection of a new house directly opposite his own. Mr C told us that this application should not have been approved as the council's Local Development Plan (LDP) only allowed for one new house to be built in rural hamlets the size of his during every five year plan period, but this was the third application that had been approved in less than 18 months. In response to his objection and complaint, the council had explained that the reason this had occurred was because one LDP had expired at the end of the year, but the new five year LDP could not be approved until a few months into the new year, due to a Scottish Government review. They said that this meant that the interim period had to be considered a second term of the older LDP, with its own allowance for rural expansion. We took independent advice from a planning adviser, who told us that the council's interpretation of the legislation was correct and, therefore, their approach was reasonable. As such, we did not uphold this complaint. Mr C also complained that the council had not taken account of an objection he made regarding the accuracy of the plans. He said that the levels shown on the plans were not consistent with the gradient of the site. On investigation, we found that Mr C had objected about this issue seperately from his original objection, and outwith the timescale for consultation. As such, the council did not accept it as a valid objection. However, they received a similar objection from another party, so this matter was considered during the process. They also treated Mr C's objection as a planning enforcement matter and attended the site to visually compare the levels against the gradient. Having done so, they concluded that the plans were a reasonable representation of the plot. We concluded that the council's actions in this respect had been reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading

Mr C complained on behalf of his mother (Mrs A), who required personal care in her home, that the council had unreasonably charged Mrs A for personal care. Following discussions with us, the council accepted that personal care for individuals over the age of 65 years was a non-chargeable service and they should not have charged Mrs A for providing her with this service. They agreed to reimburse the full free personal care contribution claimed by Mrs A. The council also apologised for the time it had taken to resolve this matter and said that a change to their charging policy would now be applied to other persons who were subject to financial assessment for non-chargeable personal care before the charging policy was revised. As this was a satisfactory outcome for Mr C, we closed the case. Related reading View Decision Report 201609443 as a PDF (10.98 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council had unreasonably invoked their unacceptable actions policy (UAP - a policy that outlines how an organisation will approach situations where the behaviour of individuals using their service becomes unacceptable, including any actions the organistion will take to restrict contact from the individuals concerned). Mr and Mrs C were unhappy that their contact with the council had been restricted in this way. The council are entitled to apply their UAP in the appropriate circumstances and we are not an appeal route for that decision. Rather, our role was to consider their administrative handling of the matter. The evidence indicated that the council's letters to Mr and Mrs C had highlighted the behaviour that was causing the council concern, enclosed copies of their UAP and told Mr and Mrs C that their contact may be restricted if that behaviour did not change. As Mr and Mrs C's behaviour continued unchanged, the council subsequently wrote to them confirming that their contact was being restricted. The council explained that they would review their decision in three months, although Mr and Mrs C could also ask them to review the decision. The evidence indicated that Mr and Mrs C were given a chance to modify their behaviour before the council invoked their UAP. It also indicated that, once the decision to restrict their contact was made, the council's letters contained the relevant information detailed in the UAP. On that basis, we concluded that the council had made a decision they were entitled to have made and that there was no evidence of maladministration in their decision-making process. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201701620 as a PDF (11.33 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Ms C complained to the council that the head teacher of her son's primary school had failed to follow correct procedures when they contacted social services regarding concerns about her son. She also did not consider that the head teacher had communicated with her appropriately when they informed her of her son's potential exclusion from school during what she considered to be an informal meeting with the class teacher. The council met with Ms C to discuss her complaint and confirmed in their initial response that the head teacher had acted appropriately in contacting social services following a disclosure made to a member of staff. The council confirmed that, in order to protect and maintain confidentiality, they were unable to discuss the nature of the disclosure with her. With regards to the meeting informing Ms C of the possibility of exclusion should her son's behaviour not improve, they confirmed that the meeting was in keeping with previous interactions she had with the school and was therefore appropriate and in line with their procedures. Ms C was not satisfied and brought her complaint to us. In addition to the complaints about procedures and communication, Ms C also complained to us that the council's response to her complaint was unreasonable. We concluded that, based on the records taken at the time regarding the disclosures made by Ms C's son, the head teacher had acted appropriately in contacting social services to discuss the concerns. We found that the head teacher acted in line with child protection policy and, given the nature of the disclosures made, was correct in not sharing the details with Ms C. In relation to the separate and unrelated matter of the potential exclusion of her son, it was clear that the school had complied with relevant policies regarding the management of pupil behaviour and that the communication with Ms C was appropriate in the circumstances. We concluded the council had acted appropriately and did not uphold these

Mr and Mrs C were living in temporary accommodation while they were on the council's housing list for permanent accommodation. When a first floor flat was offered, Mrs C contacted the council to discuss the offer. Mrs C's health condition had deteriorated and she had started to experience difficulty with climbing stairs. As this was new information to the council, they required Mrs C to provide further information about this from a medical professional. Mrs C complained that the council required her to provide a letter from her GP, which would cost her £25. Mrs C said she believed the council's policy states that they will obtain further information about a medical condition if it is required. The council responded to the complaint and advised that Mrs C was not requested to specifically go to her GP, but to obtain information from a medical professional. The council contacted the GP to request a refund of the £25 but this was refused. Mrs C also complained that the council did not keep her properly informed of what was happening next regarding the property offer. She told us she knew she was required to accept the first offer of housing made to her, yet she knew she could not accept the first offer as it was on the first floor. The council confirmed with Mr and Mrs C that the first floor property was no longer appropriate and they would remain on the housing list for a permanent property with ground floor accommodation. Our investigation found the council's policy does clearly state that if they require further information from a medical professional, they would request this information. We could not establish whether Mrs C was in fact asked to specifically contact her GP, or to contact a medical professional. We upheld this complaint, however we could not recommend a refund of £25 due to not being able to establish what was said. Our investigation also found the council did keep Mr and Mrs C informed of the next steps. The council wrote to Mr and Mrs C

Mr C had an occupational therapy assessment which recommended changes to his bathroom, including a new shower. The council facilitated the appointment of a contractor to do the work, although the instruction and contract for the work was between Mr C and the contractor. The council gave a grant for part of the work. Once the work was complete, the council inspected the work and signed it off as complete. Mr C was unhappy with the quality of the workmanship. He had an architect inspect the work and his report indicated that the installation was dangerous. Mr C felt that the council were ignoring this report and complained that the council failed to properly ensure that the work done in his bathroom met his assessed need before signing it off as complete. We investigated Mr C's complaint in relation to the council's role and obligations. We explained that we could not consider a complaint about the contractor and the quality of workmanship by them as, ultimately, he had instructed the contractor and the contract for work was between him and them. In investigating the complaint, we reviewed the documentation and information provided by Mr C and the council. We also reviewed the council’s ‘Scheme of Assistance for Private Homeowners and Tenants of Private Landlords’ (the SoA) which sets out the process to the followed by the council. The SoA indicated that, when work was complete, an occupational therapy visit should take place to make sure that the adaptation meets the client's assessed needs. A final inspection by the private sector housing team should also take place. Generally speaking, we considered that the council had fulfilled these obligations. We noted that there was no evidence that Mr C had raised concerns that his assessed needs were not met at the final inspection and we considered that the council's responses to his subsequent concerns had been reasonable. For these reasons, we decided not to uphold his complaint. We did have concerns that fo