SPSO Individual Decisions

C is an advocate for A who is a parent of child B. C complained to the Comhairle about the management of B's schooling, in particular the management of various periods of exclusion due to B's behaviours. C complained that there were occasions where B was not permitted to participate fully in their education alongside their peers and that these should have been considered as formal exclusions. The Comhairle said that there were only two periods of time that B was formally excluded and that on other occasions B was cared for in the Extended Learning Resource (ELR) unit. In response to our investigation, the Comhairle provided evidence of B's attendance and their Included, Engaged and Involved Guideline (2013) which is the policy for managing periods of exclusion. The evidence confirmed that there were occasions B was not educated alongside their classmates but did receive specialist provision elsewhere and in accordance with the policy, these periods were not regarded as formal exclusions. We also found that during the periods where B was formally excluded, the school followed the guidelines correctly. However, there were occasions where A was requested to take B home from school early and this was contrary to the policy. The Comhairle acknowledged this and offered to formally apologise to A. We upheld the complaint on this basis.

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of the late A and their family. A had complex care needs and lived at home. C complained that the council failed to deliver an appropriate care plan to meet A's assessed and eligible needs. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council took reasonable action to assess A's care needs, in line with relevant guidance and policies. We considered that the council took reasonable action to deliver a care plan to meet A's needs. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201911779 as a PDF (23.95 KB) Updated: November 17, 2021

C, parents to two children with additional support needs, complained about the social work service provided by the council. C complained that the council failed to provide overnight respite care to meet the family's assessed need. The council upheld the family’s complaint and accepted that there had been a reduction in respite provision. The council explained this situation was beyond their control, as joint overnight respite was not currently available from the service provider and no suitable alternative was available at the time. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council’s assessment documentation should have been more clearly worded to avoid ambiguity. We concluded that it was unreasonable for the council to rely on care arrangements that were ‘subject to availability’ as a long-term position and we considered that they should have done more to explore alternatives. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. C also raised concern that the council unreasonably declined to consider new respite arrangements despite acknowledging that the current arrangements were inadequate. At the time, the family was awaiting the outcome of an appeal to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal. The family declined the council’s offer of a full-time placement for one of the children on a short-term basis. The council said it was not reasonable to fully explore the family’s support proposals given the uncertainty of the tribunal outcome and the family’s circumstances. We acknowledged this, but found that it was not reasonable for the council to decline to consider interim respite arrangements. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her social work complaint. We found that the council did not follow their own procedures correctly. The council did not tell Mrs C that she could refer her complaint to an independent panel called a complaints review committee (CRC). Mrs C asked for a CRC anyway and the council convened a CRC with an independent chair and two elected councillors, according to the rules. Mrs C told us there were two specific documents related to the complaint that she wanted CRC members to see. She had asked for them to be included on the agenda but they were not. We found there was evidence of an internal discussion about sharing these two documents, which contained third party information. It was unclear what the outcome of that discussion was. We found no evidence that the council had asked permission from the third parties involved, or that they had told Mrs C the two documents could not be shared, as should have happened. Although we found the council's communication was poor regarding the two documents, we were satisfied that the CRC was able to reach a decision on each of Mrs C's complaints without seeing the documents. The CRC recommended that the council apologise to Mrs C. This did not happen for many months, until we contacted the council. The council told us that the person responsible no longer worked there and that the outstanding recommendation was not picked up by anybody else. They also issued an apology to Mrs C.

Ms C built a new house. A planning application was submitted for another new house to be built on the neighbouring plot of land. Ms C was not notified of the proposed development and, therefore, missed the opportunity to submit representations. The development was subsequently approved. When she learned of the approval, Ms C wrote to the council outlining her objections which included the close proximity, overlooking and overshadowing of the new house to her home. She also objected to the council’s approval of a late decision to relocate the new house within the site without consulting owners of neighbouring properties. The council accepted that they had not issued a neighbour notification notice to Ms C before giving consent for the new development. This was because her new house did not yet show on the maps that were used to identify neighbouring properties. However, the council felt that they had met their obligation to advertise details of the development in the local press. We found that advertising in the local press was insufficient and there was a clear requirement for the council to notify Ms C. We were critical of their failure to do so and sought evidence of the procedural changes they have implemented to avoid similar problems in the future. That said, we were satisfied that the points she raised as objections had been considered by the planning officer before the planning permission was granted. We were also satisfied that the relocation of the property was permissible as a non-material variation to the original plans and that no neighbour notification was required for this.

Miss C complained that the council had failed to provide her with a reasonable explanation about the overpayment to her of housing benefit, and unreasonably delayed in processing the change relating to the end of her childcare costs. Following our investigation of Miss C's complaint, we found that she was entitled to a statutory right of appeal if she considered that the decision notices she received were incorrect, so we were unable to address whether the council's re-calculation of her benefit claims had been properly undertaken. However, we looked at her complaint to us about administrative fault and found that the council had responded appropriately to her concerns about how the overpayment arose, but upheld her complaint because the council's decision notices had not provided a reasonable explanation about the overpayment. The council had recognised she was not provided with a lot of detail, and told her that revision of the decision notice was under review. We were satisfied that the improvement planned would provide a satisfactory outcome to her complaint. However, we made recommendations for improvements in the process (inclusion in the final letter in the complaints procedure to the claimant's statutory right of appeal to a tribunal, and additional information in the planned revised decision notice to 'time' in the right to apply for a revision of the decision by the council or appeal). We also upheld Miss C's complaint that there had been a period of delay in processing the change relating to the end of her child care costs. However, as the council had already recognised this and apologised to her, we considered that appropriate action had been taken to resolve Miss C's complaint.

Mr C applied to renew his concessionary travel card, but completed a form for a new application instead of requesting a renewal. This created a duplicate record for him on the system, which stopped the application process. When this was identified, the new record was cancelled and the renewal processed but Mr C did not receive the card in time for a long journey he had to make to attend a hospital appointment. His old card had expired by this point so he could not claim his full entitlement to expenses for the journey. He complained that the council were at fault for not providing him with appropriate advice and he felt that they were unreasonably blaming him for the delay. The council said that they forward application forms to Transport Scotland for processing, as most of the responsibility for administering the scheme lies there. They explained that council staff only have limited administrative access to the card management system, including the ability to order card renewals once continued eligibility is confirmed. Transport Scotland then produce and dispatch the card. The council said the responsibility lies with cardholders to contact them in good time to arrange a renewal. They also said that the guidance notes with new application forms point out that these should not be used for renewal applications, and explained that receipt of a duplicate application freezes the process until a cardholder makes an enquiry, which prompts them to intervene and manually correct this. Mr C felt that the council were responsible for the error as they did not give him clear advice and accepted the new application form from him. However, we were unable to identify what information he provided to the council or what advice they gave him. Due to their limited role, we were satisfied that it was appropriate for them to have forwarded the form to Transport Scotland in the first instance. They appeared to have done so without undue delay and, when the error was brought t

Mr C had a complaint about a building company who were members of the council's 'buy with confidence' scheme. Mr C contacted council officers about his complaint and they took action in relation to it. He complained to the council that the company had been allowed to join the scheme contrary to its conditions, that the council unreasonably refused to implement conditions of the scheme in regard to his complaint and that officers had not responded reasonably to his correspondence. The council's final position was that some of his correspondence could have been responded to more quickly but that they had otherwise acted reasonably. Mr C was dissatisfied with this response and with other aspects of complaints handling and complained to us. We upheld Mr C's complaints because there was no evidence that the company had complied with the conditions of membership of the scheme at the time of their joining. We also found that the council had not sought Mr C's agreement to use an arbitration scheme in relation to his complaint against the company, and had not responded reasonably to his correspondence or complaints.

A firm of solicitors complained on behalf of their clients (Mr and Mrs A) that the council did not act reasonably and correctly when they withdrew school transport. The council had introduced a revised home to school travel policy, in line with national guidelines, which meant that Mr and Mrs A's children no longer qualified for free transport to school. They also said that proper procedures had not been followed when the council dealt with the case and the appeal. Mr and Mrs A were told they could not complain as the decision of the sub-committee was final. Our investigation found that the appeal sub-committee that took the decision did not have full, accurate and relevant information about the route in question. Additionally, as there was no statutory right of appeal, Mr and Mrs A should have been signposted to us, as they were entitled to an independent review of their concerns. We upheld both complaints and made recommendations.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to uphold a public right of way, following works by a landowner. These works meant that a channel of water that could previously be crossed on foot had been deepened. Although the council had provided details of an alternative route, Mr C complained that they had failed to uphold the right of way. He also complained that the alternative route was blocked by various fences and so was impassable. When we reviewed the correspondence, we found that Mr C had not complained to the council about the fences that he alleged blocked the alternative route. The law does not normally permit us to investigate a complaint until it has fully completed the council’s complaints procedure (unless we do not consider it reasonable to expect this). As we considered this to be a serious allegation, we felt that it would be appropriate and reasonable for the council to firstly have a chance to respond. Although we did not consider that point further in determining Mr C’s complaint, we made a recommendation that they should do so. When we considered the rest of Mr C's complaint, we found that the fundamental issue he was complaining about related to the council’s legal obligations under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. We can only look at what happened in terms of administration and cannot rule on legality, which is a matter for the courts. We reviewed the information that the council gave Mr C about possible alternative access, and on balance, did not consider that there had been an administrative failing on their part. Although we did not uphold Mr C’s complaint, we made a further related recommendation.

Mr C was unhappy about the council's decision to withdraw his children's school transport provision. He complained about the process followed by the council in reaching this decision, and about the the council's handling of his appeal. During our investigation we found that the council had measured the distance between pupils' homes and their schools in preparation for the introduction of a new policy on school transport. As a result of the new measurements the council decided that Mr C's children were no longer entitled to free school transport as his house was less than a mile from the school. As this was a decision they were entitled to take, and there was no evidence of anything going wrong in the taking of the decision, we did not uphold the complaint. We also found that as Mr C had disputed the measurements, the council decided to measure again during the appeal process. Mr C thought that the council should exercise their discretion in the circumstances and provide the transport, but the further measurements showed that his home was still outside the tolerances within which they could do this. Mr C still disputes the measurements but the evidence available demonstrated that the decision on the appeal was taken after considering all available information. However, while information on the appeal process had been given to Mr C we felt that it was not clear that the committee taking the decision could seek further clarification during the appeal meeting. We made a recommendation to address this matter.

Mr C is a solicitor acting on behalf of his client (Mr A). Mr C complained about the way the council handled Mr A's request for a travel allowance for his son to attend school by car. The journey to Mr A's son's school took an hour and fifteen minutes. The council explained that their policy stated that when the journey to school exceeded an hour, lodgings would be made available. However, they added that there had not been demand for this for a number of years and that the list of approved accommodation was probably no longer in operation. This advice led Mr A to apply for a mileage allowance. His request was refused by the council. The council were also unable to provide accommodation, and said that Mr A's request for mileage was contrary to the council's policy. The situation continued like this for almost two years, when Mr A was offered a mileage allowance. Mr C complained that the council failed to provide lodgings for Mr A's son and delayed in dealing with his applications for lodgings and mileage allowance. He further complained about the council's complaints handling. Our investigation found that although the council had a policy to provide accommodation in these circumstances, they did not do so. They also failed to provide a viable alternative solution until much later. It was also apparent from the available documentation that the council did not deal with the complaint in accordance with their policy as there were delays in responding. We upheld both Mr C's complaints and made recommendations.

Mr C is a member of the board of a charitable trust. He complained on their behalf that senior officers of the council acted to the detriment of the trust. In particular he alleged that the council's chief executive misrepresented information to the council and that the director of finance delayed in his dealings with the trust. Mr C told us that, as a consequence, the trust failed to receive monies they said they had been guaranteed. The investigation showed that the chief executive had complied appropriately with the directions of an appeal panel that had reviewed the circumstances of Mr C's complaint. We found, however, that the director of finance delayed in responding to some correspondence for around six months. This was too long, and we upheld this element of the complaint.

The complainant, Mr C, lives next to a hospital. The local NHS board decided to site a new dental teaching and treatment facility in a location adjacent to the rear of his home. Mr C made four allegations concerning the unsatisfactory handling of the planning application, including unnecessary delay in informing him of the decision, the council's handling of variations from the approved plans, and their handling of his complaints and request for information. Our investigation upheld one aspect of the handling of Mr C's objections to the plan, namely that the council delayed unduly in informing Mr C of the decision to grant consent and alerting him to the conditions imposed. We also partially upheld the complaint that the council dealt unsatisfactorily with his complaint and requests for information. Related reading View Decision Report 201002384 as a PDF () Updated: March 13, 2018