SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the actions of the council in relation to repairs required at their home. They considered the communication, quality of repairs and time taken to carry out and fully resolve the repairs were unreasonable. While it was noted that there were significant efforts made to seek to resolve the issues, and some delays were outwith the council’s control, overall, we considered the council failed to reasonably respond to repairs. While some repairs were completed in the target timescale, others were not, and for other repairs there was no record provided to indicate whether they were complete and no mechanism to escalate the situation where repeated attempts to repair the same fault were unsuccessful. As such we upheld the complaint.

C submitted a housing application to the council and complained about how this was handled. C complained that the council unreasonably suspended their application while investigating their personal circumstances, that they ignored their medical conditions, and that they did not respond to C’s concerns appropriately. The council said they considered C’s application was handled appropriately and they noted that C has since accepted an offer of permanent housing. We found that, while C did record their medical conditions on the housing application, they did not indicate that they required any specific adaptations, therefore the council handled the application appropriately. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. While we considered the council handled C’s application appropriately overall, and they gave appropriate advice in response to C’s queries, we did conclude that the council’s housing allocations policy was not clear about the circumstances that an application will be suspended. As such, we upheld the second part of C's complaint and asked the council to review their policy to ensure it is clear and transparent with regard to when housing applications will/will not be suspended.

Prior to 2015, C’s grandchild was placed in their care by social work. C was granted a Section 11 Residence Order by a court (also known as a Kinship Care Order, conveying parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the child). The case was then closed to social work in mid-2015. C complained that the council did not contact them directly to advise of the changes to the kinship care legislation in October 2015. C stated that they found out that the law had changed through word-of-mouth in September 2019. C also complained that when they applied for a kinship care allowance this was only backdated to the date of their application and not to October 2015. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the legislation and guidance did not require the council to directly contact all closed cases where a section 11 order was in place to notify them of the changes. The legislation requires local authorities to publish certain information about kinship care assistance and the council provided evidence that they had done this. We also found that there was no indication in the legislation and guidance that C’s particular circumstances entitled them to a backdated allowance to October 2015. We did not uphold C’s complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 202000613 as a PDF (24.32 KB) Updated: November 17, 2021

C had a child (A). C was subject to a Pre-Birth Risk Assessment. The council put in place a rehabilitation plan to support C in caring for A. It was accepted that this plan did not clearly communicate the council’s concerns to C. The council decided to restart the rehabilitation process (though a shorter one) and considered providing feedback in a different way. The second rehabilitation plan was unsuccessful and A was placed in foster care full-time. C complained that the council did not provide them with sufficient support to enable A to live with them. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council provided C with reasonable support to enable them to care for A, and noted that C did not always engage with this support. For this reason, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201907696 as a PDF (24.11 KB) Updated: February 17, 2021

C complained on behalf of their family member (A) in relation to a number of aspects of the social work service provided to A's family. A is the parent of two children who are in temporary foster care. C raised concerns about poor communication, the council continuing to use inaccurate reports (despite agreeing to amend these) and the council's handling of their complaint. We took independent advice from a social worker. In relation to C's concerns about communication, we found that a number of aspects of the council's communication were reasonable. However, we found that the council did not provide A with adequate updates or explanation for the delay in arranging a court date for a hearing in relation to the placement of A's children. On this basis, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. Regarding C's concerns about the accuracy of reports provided to the Children's Reporter (a person who makes decisions to help young people who need care and protection), we found that the council, as author and owner of the report, retained responsibility for the content. We noted that the council should ensure the accuracy of the reports provided and make reasonable attempts to correct the record when information previously provided is known to be inaccurate. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Finally, we found a number of failings in the council's handling of C's complaints. We identified investigation delays and issues with the council's communication about timeframes. We also found that some points of complaint were not addressed in the response, whilst other points had not been investigated thoroughly enough. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

C, a support and advice worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) that the council had unreasonably failed to provide A with kinship care assistance, including financial support. A became the carer to their family member (B) when B's parent was unable to care for them. The council initially advised A that a kinship care assessment would take place and that A would receive a kinship care allowance. The council then changed their position. They advised that from the outset, A was clear that they would care for B should B's parent be unable to do so. As a result, their view was that B was not at risk of becoming 'looked after' (a looked after child is a child under the care of the council) and that an assessment was therefore not required and no financial assistance would be provided. C challenged this decision, stating that B could be considered to be at risk of becoming looked after. This would mean that B could be classed as an eligible child, which would allow kinship allowances to be paid. We took independent advice from an adviser with a background in social work and children and family services. We found that the council had not carried out an appropriate assessment to determine whether B was at risk of becoming looked after. The council had largely based their decision-making on statements made by A. We considered that these statements were not adequate evidence that B was not at risk of becoming looked after. We noted that the council's initial actions indicated that they did consider B was at risk of being looked after. In particular: it was the council who approached A in the first instance to discuss kinship care and what was involved the council was involved in placing B with A there was no evidence of a clear discussion regarding the family making their own arrangements B would have to be accommodated as a looked after child if A did not agree to care for them. We noted that the council had apologised for indicating that A would receive

C complained to us about the actions of the council in relation to a development near their home. They said that the council unreasonably accepted unreliable information from the applicant and failed to ensure that adequate investigations were carried out in relation to drainage from the site and ground water level. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council acted reasonably in accepting advice on the matter from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. They were entitled to reach the decision they did, given that advice. We did not uphold this complaint. C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to enforce a planning condition in relation to the site entrance. We found that the planning officer had consulted roads officers on the details submitted to discharge the roads conditions. The council’s position in respect of there being no breach of consent was one that they were entitled to take. We did not uphold this complaint. In addition, C complained that the council unreasonably failed to ensure that a remedial strategy for field drainage was submitted in line with a planning condition. We found that it was a matter for the council to decide what action it is appropriate to take in respect of enforcement, and whether or not information submitted is sufficient to discharge conditions. In this case, the decisions taken by the council were decisions they were entitled to take and we did not uphold the complaint. Finally, C complained that the council unreasonably failed to ensure that the burial site visibility splay complied with their roads standards. We found that it was reasonable for the planning officer to have accepted advice from roads officers that the visibility splay had been inspected on site and determined to be acceptable, and to have discharged the condition accordingly. The council undertook the correct processes in determining the planning application and the discharge of the conditions, and therefore

Mrs C complained to the council about their handling of confidential documents relating to her mother (Mrs A). Her complaints were upheld and a number of recommendations were made, but the council delayed in implementing the recommendations. We investigated Mrs C's complaint about the delay. We found that the delay had been unreasonable and upheld the complaint. Although the council said that they had now implemented all of the recommendations, we requested evidence of this to satisfy ourselves that this had been done. With regard to the complaints handling, the council should have followed their complaint process from the outset but failed to do so. When the council said that they were treating Mrs C's complaint as a Stage 2 complaint (investigation stage), as requested by Mrs C, their response showed no sign of investigation and contained inconsistent statements. We upheld this complaint.

Mr C complained on behalf of his son (Mr A) about a number of matters in relation to social work involvement with their family. We took independent advice from a child and family social work adviser. In relation to a social work assessment, Mr C was unhappy with the level of assessment of Mr A and his partner that was carried out. We found that the council had a good reason not to complete a full assessment of Mr A and his partner and we did not uphold this complaint. Mr C was also unhappy about a delay in completing the assessment. We noted that the council had upheld Mr C's complaint about the delay in completing the assessments. We found that the council had issued a briefing note to staff regarding this issue. We upheld the complaint and gave the council feedback about further good practice for learning from complaints. Mr C also raised concern about a social worker communicating sensitive information by phone rather than at a meeting. The council upheld the complaint and issued a briefing to staff about communication. Subsequently, the issue reoccurred and the council agreed to amend guidance to staff. We upheld the complaint. Mr C complained about the way the council handled his request for a change in a member of staff involved in his family's case. We found that there was a lengthy delay in the council responding to Mr C. We noted that the response did not come from the officer who made the decision and no explanation for the decision was provided. We upheld the complaint. Mr C further raised concerns about a number of aspects of complaint handling. We found that the council had failed to apologise to Mr C for the use of inappropriate language (an aspect of the complaint they had upheld) and had failed to fully investigate part of Mr C's complaint. We upheld the complaint. Mr C also complained that the council failed to share with the family a concern about the wellbeing of the children that was identified by their school. We found that it woul

Mr C complained that the council failed to reasonably uphold access rights to a field. Mr C was of the view that the landowner had unreasonably locked the gate without providing a stock gate or a stile. Mr C noted that the public had accessed the field for over 20 years. The council contacted the landowner, who confirmed that there was now livestock in the field and that the gate had to be locked to keep the animals in. The council cited the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code as guiding parameters for their decision not to take enforcement action against the landowner for locking the gate. We found that the council had given due time and consideration to all of the issues brought before them, and had assessed a number of different sources of evidence. The council have stated that they expect the gate to be unlocked at times when no livestock are in the field. We confirmed that it is not for this office to give a definitive intepretation of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, or the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. We noted that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 sets out in section 28 that it is for a Sheriff to determine the existence and extent of access rights. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. While Mr C did not ask us to investigate how the council handled his complaint, during our investigation we observed that the complaints handling fell below the standard that we would expect. We have therefore made a recommendation that the council apologise to Mr C for this.

Miss C complained that the council had not followed their policies and procedures in relation to an incident involving her child (Child A). We found that the council had rightly initiated their child protection procedures. The council had also followed their processes, and had met with Miss C to agree a safety plan, taking account of both her views and those of Child A. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201800266 as a PDF (10.74 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's response to his report of a breach of planning control. He also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to his complaint. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had provided a reasonable explanation about the actions they had taken in response to the alleged breach of planning. The council responded to the alleged breach within the appropriate timescales and had discretion to consider what the most appropriate response was. We did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint. Regarding complaints handling, we did find that the council's response to Mr C's complaint was outwith timescales. However, the response was thorough and provided a clear explanation of the actions taken. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201800223 as a PDF (10.94 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C fell on a pedestrian railway crossing and injured himself. He complained to the council that they had not taken steps to ensure that the walkway was safe for members of the public, including providing adequate lighting and warnings of steps on the approach to the bridge. The council responded that they considered the footbridge was adequately maintained and that there was no obligation to provide lighting. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us. We found that the council had entered into an agreement with the rail company, and their predecessors, that stated the rail company was responsible for the maintenance of the footbridge. They were also responsible for specifying what lighting was required. Therefore, we determined that it was not the responsibility of the council to ensure that the footbridge was safe. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to respond to his complaint. We found that the council's response was insufficient as it failed to explain that the rail company was responsible for the maintenance of the footbridge, and that they were the appropriate party to deal with the complaint. We also found that there was an unreasonable delay in providing Mr C with a response to his complaint. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to provide their school transport drivers with child protection awareness training. Mr C reported an incident involving his daughter and the school bus driver to the council and, following an investigation, questioned why the bus driver had not received any training regarding child protection. The council confirmed that their policy states child protection awareness training is only a requirement for bus drivers who transport children with additional needs. We took independent advice from a social worker. The adviser referred to the relevant national guidance and identified that training should be provided to all adults, including school bus drivers, who have regular contact with children as part of their job. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint. Before our investigation reached a conclusion, the council acknowledged that they failed to take into account the guidance and confirmed that they have already taken steps to remedy the situation. We recommended the council apologise to Mr C and to provide our office with an update on the progress of their improvements.

Mr C complained regarding the council's handling of his reports of neighbour nuisance behaviour. Mr C complained to the council about nuisance behaviour over a period of about a year. He said the council did not respond reasonably to his phone calls and emails, including to the council's helpline, and that they did not take reasonable action to address the behaviour. Mr C also said that the council did not respond reasonably to his complaint. The council acknowledged that there were some issues with communication and complaints handling, and we therefore upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint. However, they said they took reasonable action to address the nuisance behaviour. Based on the information we received about the actions of the council and the circumstances of the case, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council did not take reasonable action to address the nuisance behaviour.

Ms C, a solicitor, complained to the council about the provision of community care for one of her clients. As Ms C had not received a final response to her complaint, just over eight months after writing to the council, she complained to us about the delay. We found that Ms C's complaint was acknowledged the day it was received by the council, but she did not receive a meaningful response until more than 11 weeks had passed. This was after Ms C had contacted the council twice to enquire about their response. In the council's initial response, they incorrectly told Ms C that legal advice was being sought in relation to her complaint. However, this was not requested until nine months later (during the time that we were investigating the complaint). It was clear to us, and it was accepted by the council, that there was an unreasonable delay in dealing with Ms C. We upheld Ms C's complaint.

Ms C, a solicitor, complained to the council about the provision of community care for one of her clients. As Ms C had not received a final response to her complaint, just over eight months after writing to the council, she complained to us about the delay. We found that Ms C did not receive a meaningful response from the council until more than 11 weeks had passed. This was after Ms C had contacted the council twice to enquire about their response. In the council's initial response, they incorrectly told Ms C that legal advice was being sought in relation to her complaint. However, this was not requested until nine months later (during the time that we were investigating the complaint). It was clear to us, and it was accepted by the council, that there was an unreasonable delay in dealing with Ms C. We upheld Ms C's complaint.

Ms C, a solicitor, complained to the council about the provision of community care for one of her clients. As Ms C had not received a final response to her complaint, just over eight months after writing to the council, she complained to us about the delay. We found that Ms C did not receive a meaningful response from the council until more than 11 weeks had passed. This was after Ms C had contacted the council twice to enquire about their response. In the council's initial response, they incorrectly told Ms C that legal advice was being sought in relation to her complaint. However, this was not requested until nine months later (during the time that we were investigating the complaint). It was clear to us, and it was accepted by the council, that there was an unreasonable delay in dealing with Ms C. We upheld Ms C's complaint.

Mr C's home was being repossessed and he applied to the council for housing. The council initially concluded that Mr C was not homeless or threatened with homelessness and decided it was reasonable for him to continue living in his home. Mr C complained about the way his housing assessment was handled and the council acknowledged that the service he received could have been better. The council took steps to address the issues prior to Mr C bringing his complaint to us and we were satisfied there was no evidence to suggest that Mr C's housing application has been affected. In addition, Mr C was made an offer of housing, which he accepted, shortly after referring his complaint to us. We concluded that the council’s handling of Mr C’s application for housing was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint. We also looked at the council’s handling of Mr C’s complaint. We were satisfied that his complaints were investigated appropriately by the council and they provided clear responses. The council acknowledged there were issues and took appropriate steps to address them. For example, when Mr C’s housing application was closed down, the council acknowledged that more information should have been gathered and because of that, they agreed to review the decision. However, the council did not inform Mr C of his right to refer his complaint to us and they should have done that. Nonetheless, the information available confirmed that Mr C brought his complaint to us in the same month he received the council's final response. Therefore, even though he was not referred to us by the council, the failure to do so did not adversely affect his right to come to our office. We were satisfied that, on balance, the council’s overall handling of Mr C’s complaint was reasonable.

Mr C complained about the closure of his local library and re-development of the building. He said that the council had not done what they said they would do; that they had provided inaccurate information on an external funding application; and that they did not deal reasonably with his subsequent complaints. Our investigation found that the council had undertaken community consultation and consideration of the various options for the re-development as they had said they would. Mr C did not agree with the option chosen, but this was a discretionary decision that the council were entitled to make. On the funding application, we found that some of the information Mr C described as inaccurate was subjective, but that this did not necessarily make it inaccurate. Other comments were contained within internal documentation which, although relevant to the application, did not actually form part of the submitted application. We also found that, although there was an initial delay in passing the complaint to the relevant department, overall the council complied with their complaints procedure and provided Mr C with comprehensive information in response to his concerns. Mr C did not agree with the council's viewpoint on certain issues, but this was not the same as failing to deal with these issues. Related reading View Decision Report 201300089 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A) about the social care provided to her late husband (Mr A) in the last days of his life. Mr A had been discharged home from hospital into the care of his GP and the district nursing service, with the support of social care officers. It was known that he was dying and there had been a meeting to discuss the support he would need at home. It was considered that Mr A should be nursed and cared for in a hospital bed. Mr and Mrs A did not want this and he was cared for in his own bed. However, there were practical difficulties with this, which compromised the support given to Mr A by council care officers. Mrs A was distressed that during the last days of her husband's life he was not afforded the dignity and respect he required and deserved. We investigated the complaint and found that the council had acknowledged their role in the poor care provided to Mr A. Staff had not been able to manage Mr A physically because of difficulties presented by the absence of a hospital bed. They had, however, not told managers of their concerns about Mr A's care being compromised as a result of this. This was explained to Mrs A when she complained, and the council had apologised unreservedly and told her Mrs A what they had done to try to avoid this happening to someone else. It was not in dispute that the council failed to provide Mr and Mrs A with the level of support they could have expected, so we upheld the complaint. However, the investigation also showed that the procedures the council had since put in place went far in attempting to prevent a similar situation happening. Mrs A had also received a sincere apology, so although we upheld the complaint, we did not make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201401420 as a PDF (11.44 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had lived close to a semi-industrial property for a number of years without problems, but more recently the owners of the property had sought to diversify and to develop the site and their business. Work started on the site but without the necessary planning permission. Mr C and his neighbours complained to the council about this and about the noise coming from the site, and the council told the developer that he needed to obtain planning permission. The developer took five months to make a retrospective application and meanwhile noise complaints continued. Although the council had a target to consider the application within two months, it took them nine months to do so. The application was then refused by a committee of councillors. Throughout this time Mr C had been complaining of noise and disturbance in his home. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation showed that while council officers were encouraged to support small businesses, they also had obligations to the wider public. In this case, there was no doubt that works had been undertaken without the necessary planning permission and that noise was affecting those who lived nearby. While the council advised the developer of this, they allowed him too long before he submitted his retrospective application. Although it was clear that during this time they were negotiating with the developer to mitigate the noise, matters took too long to resolve. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C lived in a small residential development. The site consisted of multiple plots and various planning consents were in place for individual developments. It was served by a shared access track with planning conditions in place requiring the developer to upgrade the track surface and drainage before building work started. Mrs C complained that development progressed at the site without the access track being upgraded. The council took a pragmatic view that it was appropriate for the final surfacing work to be done after all work on the site was completed. However, in the meantime, the track surface became badly damaged and no interim maintenance work was carried out. Initially the council had worked with the main developer to ensure the track was maintained, but the developer sold on a number of their plots and no longer considered themselves liable for the access track. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers and found that the pragmatic view taken by the council about final completion of the track was reasonable. However, we were critical of their failure to ensure that interim maintenance work was carried out. In particular, we found that the original planning conditions were poorly worded and made no provision for interim maintenance of the track. Furthermore, we considered that the council did not fully explore who was liable for the planning conditions after the developer sold on their plots and failed to take steps to work with the responsible party to ensure access to the site was maintained.

Ms C became concerned about her child's educational progress after the child moved schools and reported classroom disruption. She complained to the council about this, and said that the school adopted a defensive and unhelpful attitude at a meeting she attended. The council investigated, but did not uphold her complaints. Ms C then complained to us that the council did not adequately investigate and respond to her. Our investigation found that the council's investigation had not established all the relevant facts, and we upheld her complaint.

When Mr C moved into a new property, he discovered that the roof space was not adequately insulated. He contacted the developer and the council. Following discussion with the developer, he contacted the council's building standards department for help and asked for a copy of an updated drawing for the roof space. It took seven months for the council to provide the drawing. Mr C was then unhappy with the handling of his complaint about this, and that an email to the chief executive had not been responded to. Having carefully considered his complaint and documentation, we considered that there was an unreasonable delay in providing Mr C with a copy of the drawing. The council had already agreed to apologise to Mr C for this. We also found that they had not made sure that Mr C was aware of their role and limitations in helping him try to resolve issues with the developer. We found that the complaints handling had been poor. The council had not followed their published complaints procedure on a number of occasions during the handling of his complaint, and had not considered whether the particular circumstances meant that they should have escalated it straight to the investigation stage of their procedure. The council acknowledged that Mr C's email to the chief executive was not responded to in a timely manner.