SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained to the council about a number of aspects of the council’s handling of a planning application for development on a site opposite C’s home, including that the Report of Handling was not reasonable as it did not reference any assessment of how waste would be managed and stored on the site. The council told C that the specific materials that they had mentioned, manure and old bedding, their storage and management, had not been addressed in the Report as they were not part of the application. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the contents of the planning application meant that the council were entitled to take the view that their policy on waste management requirements for new development were not determinative in this instance and that not explicitly mentioning this in the Report did not make it unreasonable. We did not uphold the complaint. C also complained about various aspects of the council’s response to their complaints. In some cases, we found that the council provided responses which were not reasonable,including responses that were not clear and did not include reasonable explanations, responses that raised uncertainty about planning matters, a response that had been incorrect, not responding to clear concerns C had raised and not confirming whether they considered specific planning conditions had been met. We upheld the complaint that the council did not respond reasonably to C’s complaints.

C, an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) who is the kinship carer of their grandchild (B). B came to live with A from England. C complained that the council failed to assess A in relation to the kinship care arrangement in place for B and failed to respond to A's complaint about entitlement to kinship care allowance. C was seeking backdated kinship care allowance for A. The council stated that it was the responsibility of the authority in England as they were the ones who placed B in A's care. After obtaining initial social work advice, we opened the complaint at investigation. In response to the complaint notice letter, the council agreed to apologise to A, make a backdated kinship care payment of £17,559.26 and make future monthly payments. They also agreed to update their kinship care allowance policy/procedure. C was satisfied with this response and we closed the complaint as resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 202405671 as a PDF (24.2 KB) Updated: June 18, 2025

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to carry out and progress police checks for two individuals who have contact with their grandchild. After notifying the council of our investigation, they agreed to provide C with a fuller apology and assurance that this would not happen again. C was happy with this outcome. Therefore, we closed the complaint as resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 202311539 as a PDF (23.94 KB) Updated: June 18, 2025

C, a support and advice worker, complained on behalf of their client (A). A is a kinship carer to two grandchildren (child B and child D). When child B was born, they stayed with their parent and A at the same address. The following year, child B’s parent left the house and child B remained in A’s care. There was social work involvement during this period, with a section 25 being signed and a noted intention to assess further and refer to the Children’s Reporter. Within a few months, A was granted a residency order conferring parental rights and responsibilities and the council closed the case. Child D was born and lived with their parent for four years, until they were placed with A under a Compulsory Supervision Order. A received kinship care allowance for child D and also applied for kinship care allowance for child B. This was initially refused, but after A made a complaint to the SPSO, the application was reconsidered. The council backdated the kinship care allowance in respect of child B. C complained that kinship care allowance was not backdated far enough for child B. The council responded that they had never considered child B to be a “looked after” child and therefore eligible for kinship care allowance. As such there was no reason to backdate further. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that due to lack of evidence and dispute between parties it was not possible to definitively determine the status of child B in earlier years. On application, the council paid kinship care allowance and backdated to the point at which child D had been placed with A under a Compulsory Supervision Order. We determined that the council had acted reasonably in this matter. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202110756 as a PDF (24.65 KB) Updated: December 20, 2023

C’s neighbour was granted planning permission for the construction of an outbuilding in their garden. C complained that the council’s handling of the planning application was unreasonable. C complained that their objections had not been set out in full in the Report of Handling and that the report did not include an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on C’s garden. The build site was on sloping ground and C complained that the change in land height on the build site had not been mentioned. They also complained that the Report of Handling did not accurately summarise the scale of the proposed development or its proximity to C’s garden. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that although the Report of Handling did not include reference to the assessment of the impact of the proposed development on sunlight in C’s garden, the council had been able to demonstrate that this formed part of their assessment. We found that there was a reasonable consideration of the impact of the build on the existing house, the surrounding area, and the amenity of C’s property. Although we were critical of aspects of the council’s handling of the application, we did not consider the shortcomings sufficient to lead to a finding that the handling was unreasonable. We found no evidence that any material considerations which might have led to the refusal of the application were overlooked. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint but we did provide feedback on matters the council could have dealt with better. In relation to complaint handling, we found that the council failed to identify and respond to the key concerns raised by C. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

C, a representative of an organisation that provides support to planning application objectors, complained on behalf of an objecting neighbour (A). C raised a number of concerns about the council’s handling of a retrospective planning application. An unauthorised development had been reported to the council’s planning enforcement team. The retrospective planning application was approved, subject to conditions. C complained that the council failed to reasonably assess the risk of flooding at the site, that they failed to follow correct procedure for the scale of the development and failed to take into account an objection submitted by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). We reviewed the relevant planning documents and sought independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that there was a failure to seek a flood risk assessment, particularly in light of the concerns raised by SEPA, the fact the development was on a listed flood plain and the Planning Officer had identified a risk of flooding as a reason for recommending refusal of the application. As such, we upheld complaint C’s complaint about the failure to request a flood risk assessment. In respect of C’s concerns about the council’s consideration of SEPA’s consultation response, we found that the content of SEPA’s response was accurately summarised in the Planning Officer’s report to the Planning Committee. We did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint. Our final consideration was whether the council failed to refer the planning application to Scottish Ministers. We concluded that the council should have treated SEPA’s response as an objection to the planning application and that this should have led to the application being referred to Scottish Ministers. We upheld the complaint.

C complained about social care provided by the council to their elderly parent and how the council had communicated with them in relation to this. The complaint was taken to investigation on the basis of the information provided by the council to our initial enquiries and considered by a social work adviser. However, in response to our notification of investigation, the council provided evidence of further information explaining the reasons for the poor communication with C and further details of measures taken to address the failings in this case, which they fully accepted. We took further advice from our social work adviser, who confirmed the measures taken by the council were reasonable in the circumstances. On this basis, it was agreed with C that we would request the council to issue a further apology to C, which they provided. However, C advised that they did not wish to accept the apology once it had been received. On review of the apology, it appeared to be reasonable and in accordance with the SPSO guidance on apologies. On this basis, the investigation of C's complaint was discontinued as there was nothing further we could achieve. Related reading View Decision Report 202004356 as a PDF (24.27 KB) Updated: May 18, 2022

C complained on behalf of their client (A) that the council had unreasonably failed to handle a request for kinship care assistance. A assumed care of their grandchildren and applied for and was granted a residence order. A one-off payment along with weekly payments were paid by the council. While a kinship assessment was commenced, it was approximately three years later before A was told that they were not an approved kinship carer and that the weekly payments would be stopped. C complained to the council that the decision to stop the weekly payments was unreasonable and that A had been treated poorly by the council. In addition, C complained that the kinship assessment had restarted three times with three different social workers which had made this a distressing process for A. Also, the grandchildren were incorrectly not being recognised as being ‘at risk of becoming looked after’. We took independent advice from an adviser with a background in social work and children and family services. We found that there were significant delays in concluding the kinship assessment which had not adhered to the timescales set out in the Guidance on the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations and the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007. We also found that the outcome had not been communicated to A as per this guidance. While it is for the council to determine whether or not a child is at risk of becoming looked after, we accepted the advice we received that, in this case, the council had failed to evidence that they carried out a sufficient level of assessment to conclude whether or not A’s grandchildren were at risk of becoming ‘looked after’. In addition, we found that the council had failed to carry out an in-depth assessment of the family’s circumstances, particularly the six months before the residence order was granted, under the terms of the National Guidance. Finally, we found that the council’s communication with A was unreasonable. For the reasons detailed

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) about the failure by the council to carry out a kinship care assessment. This failure meant A had not been provided with interim payments whilst a child (B) resided with them. B was the subject of a compulsory supervision order (CSO), which required them to live at A's property. The council said they considered the arrangement to be a private one between A and B's family and they did not believe a CSO was necessary or appropriate. The council added that B no longer resided with A. Following our enquiries, the council offered to make a payment to A for the period between the making of the CSO and B moving out. C confirmed this was acceptable to A and would resolve the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202001911 as a PDF (24.08 KB) Updated: September 22, 2021

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. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that a number of contemporaneous records were missing. The record-keeping failures in this case mean that there is no record of whether the council have met their legal and procedural obligations. In particular, there is no definitive record of whether a Section 25 order was signed and rescinded or why the decision to carry out a comprehensive assessment and refer to the Children's Reporter was not followed through. We found that these record-keeping failures had left the family in an unreasonable position where there is difficulty corroborating what happened and therefore placing them at a disadvantage in terms of accessing a kinship care assessment and any appropriate allowances. In the absence of records, we considered that the council had unreasonably failed to take sufficient account of the evidence available from the family and the social worker involved at the time (both of whom indicated that a Section 25 order was signed). Based on the evidence available, we considered that it was likely that a Section 25 order was signed and at that point B became a looked after child which means they became an eligible child in relation to kinship care under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. We also noted that the Kinship Care Assistance (Scotland) Order 2016 extended the definition of an eligible child to include a child who was previously looked after. In light of the above, we considered that the council failed to provide A with reasonable kinship care assistance. As such, we upheld the complaint.

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) in relation to the council's decision not to make payment of kinship care allowance in respect of children in A's care. C stated that A was entitled to receive kinship care allowance on the basis that both children, whom A had been caring for following the death of a parent, had initially been looked after by the council given that the children's surviving parent had agreed to transfer responsibility for their care to the council immediately following the other parent's death. A had also secured residency rights in respect of the children by obtaining an order under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which C stated was to be considered as a kinship care order in terms of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. In response, the council stated that, while the agreement of the children's surviving parent had been sought to transfer their care to the council after the death of the other parent, it had ultimately not been necessary to proceed on this basis given that A had stepped forward to care for the children almost immediately. Accordingly, the children had never been formally looked after. In addition, the council stated that A and the children's extended family had chosen to look after the children themselves on a private basis without the need for further input from the council's social work department. For these reasons, the council considered that A was not entitled to receive kinship care support. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that A had stepped forward to care for the children within a matter of hours of the council seeking the children's surviving parent's agreement to transfer their care to the council. We agreed with the council's position that it had ultimately not been necessary for them to proceed further in this regard and, accordingly, the children had never been formally looked after by the council. We further agreed

Mr C complained about the actions of the council’s social work services department. This was following referrals made by Police Scotland and an NHS board, after there were concerns about Mr C’s whereabouts and wellbeing. On the basis of these referrals, the council wrote to Mr C and advised him that they did not feel there was a need for Adult Services to intervene at that time but that he could contact them if there was anything else he felt they could support him with. In Mr C’s view, the council unreasonably failed to contact him by telephone and within 24 hours, despite assurances that were given to him by other parties. In addition to this, he said that the council’s conclusion that there was no requirement for Adult Services at that time was unreasonable. We took independent advice from a social worker. We concluded that it was reasonable for the council to write out to Mr C rather than phoning him within 24 hours. This was because the referral information provided to the council by Police Scotland and the NHS board did not indicate that there was a requirement to contact him by phone or within 24 hours. We also found that it was reasonable for the council to conclude that there was no role for Adult Services at that time. Again, the council’s decision was based on the referral information provided by Police Scotland and the NHS board. This information stated that there were no immediate concerns for Mr C’s welfare and that he was not presenting as having any acute mental ill health conditions. Therefore, based on the information known to them at the time, we considered the council’s actions to be reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201905502 as a PDF (24.48 KB) Updated: February 17, 2021

C, an advocacy worker, complained to us on behalf of their client (A). A and their partner agreed to care for their partner's two younger siblings, after their parent became seriously unwell. The children were on the child protection register (a list of children who are considered to be at risk of significant harm and who are subject to a child protection plan) and they had additional support needs. During our investigation, we took independent advice from a social worker. C complained that the council delayed in contacting A, after the children went to live with them. We found there was an unreasonable delay in the council contacting A to provide them with advice and to discuss plans for the children's immediate and longer term care. C complained that the council failed to visit the children weekly. We found that the council should have ensured the children received weekly visits from social workers while they were on the child protection register and that did not happen. We found there was a failure to properly seek the children's views and include them in the child protection case conferences and associated paperwork. We noted that the council considered that the children were no longer at risk when they went to live with A. We found that the council failed to appropriately gather information to assess the risk to the children before they decided to remove them from the child protection register. We also found that, if the council considered that the children were no longer at risk, the council should have held a review child protection case conference within the timescales set out in the national child protection guidance. C also complained that the council failed to help support the children with their special education needs. We found that the council's social worker, as the lead professional, should have taken steps to co-ordinate the education aspects of the children's care and ensure this aspect of the child's plan was progressing. Finally, C complained tha

C’s child (A) was involved in an incident with another pupil. C complained to the council about how the matter had been handled. They complained about the school’s actions once the incident was reported, the school’s failure to instigate child protection procedures or involve partner services, and about the lack of ongoing assistance and support to A following the incident. The council concluded that the school’s actions on the day of the incident had been reasonable and that support measures were put in place within the school following the incident, but also that the school should have made more efforts to contact the Educational Psychology Service at an early stage. The council accepted that it would have been appropriate to contact the Safeguarding Manager after A had given further information about the incident. The council said that the school had taken steps to ensure these shortcomings would not be repeated in future, but also noted that it was not likely that different actions would have been taken in the event of earlier contact with the Educational Psychology Service and the Safeguarding Manager. C was dissatisfied with this response and brought their complaint to us. We found that the council’s investigations of the incident were reasonable in light of the specific circumstances and the relevant policy, procedure and guidance. In reaching our conclusion we took into account that the council had accepted that the school should have sought advice from the Safeguarding Manager. In relation to communication, we found that the school shared accurate details of the incident, as were available to them at the time, when they initially contacted C. We also found that it was reasonable they did not invite C to meet with them at this point given the circumstances, and that the school were open with C about the measures they had taken, while sharing a reasonable amount of detail about these measures with C in the circumstances, and having regard to confident

Mr C, an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of his clients (Mr and Mrs A). Due to long-standing conditions, Mrs A was deemed to require personal care and had received self-directed support payments in order to employ a personal assistant (PA). Mr A also had personal care needs and the couple identified a PA who would be able to provide the required care for them both. Mr and Mrs A, along with Mr C, met with a social worker to discuss how to get the necessary care in place. Mr C stated that the social worker told Mr A that he would be financially assessed and it was likely that he would have to make little or no contribution towards his care. In addition to this, Mr C stated that Mrs A was told that Mr A's assessment and support would not affect her. After this meeting, Mr and Mrs A started using the services of the PA whilst the council's financial assessment process was ongoing. Later, the council sent Mr and Mrs A separate letters advising that they had to make a financial contribution of £49.98 per week each towards their respective care. In addition to this, the council advised Mr and Mrs A that they had incurred a debt of around £2000 for the care already provided. Mr C complained about the council's financial assessment process and the information that was provided to Mr and Mrs A. In his view, the council did not provide Mr and Mrs A with appropriate information, and this contributed to them incurring a significant and unexpected debt. We took independent advice from social worker. We concluded that the financial assessments had been carried out appropriately and in line with the relevant guidance at the time. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In respect of the information provided to Mr and Mrs A, we concluded that the council did not provide appropriate information about how they would be jointly financially assessed. When reviewing the evidence, we placed particular weight on the social worker's statement which was con

C complained that agreements between them and the school their child (A) attended had been repeatedly broken. In addition, C's spouse had been initially prevented from attending a meeting about A, due to an objection from A's other parent. C believed it was unreasonable for the school to have informed A's other parent that their spouse would be attending. C was also unhappy with the council's investigation into the complaints they made about these issues. Although some of their complaints had been upheld, C felt that the council had not investigated the issues properly and noted that the recommendations made following the investigation by the council had not been carried out. We found that the school had failed to adhere to the agreements it had reached with C about A. We considered that the council's investigation was right to uphold C's complaints, but it had unreasonably concluded that the actions taken by the school were adequate, when they were not. We also found that the recommendations made by the council's investigation had not been carried out, which undermined the value of the apology they offered to C. We found that the investigation into the meeting which C's spouse was initially barred from attending was unreasonable. In particular, the actions of school staff did not appear to be in line with Getting It Right For Every Child procedures. We also found that the council's investigation had unreasonably restricted the information that it was considering. Consequently, important aspects of the decision were overlooked, including the legal basis for the original decision to bar C's spouse from the meeting, which was the source of the complaint. We found, however, that given the passage of time a re-investigation of the complaint would not have been reasonable or proportionate. We upheld all of C's complaints.

C, an advice worker, complained about the council on behalf of their client (A). A's relative (B) was placed with them after difficulties in their parents' circumstances. It was initially agreed that a parenting assessment be carried out, which led to a joint care arrangement being agreed. However, an incident later in the year highlighted that it would not be suitable for this arrangement to continue. It was agreed at a Looked After Child Review that a kinship care assessment in respect of A assuming full time care of B should be progressed. The initial kinship care assessment was not completed and there were delays before the assessment was re-started. This meant it took many months for A to be approved as a kinship carer. After C complained, the council agreed that kinship care assessments should be completed within twelve weeks and three days of the placement. However, in their view, the twelve weeks and three days should begin from the date it was agreed a kinship care assessment should be carried out. C complained to us as they did not agree with this position and felt the twelve weeks and three days should be taken from the date B was placed with them. We independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council's decision to commence the kinship care assessment from the date it was agreed a kinship care assessment should be carried out was not supported by the relevant guidance and evidence. We considered it reasonable for the council to pursue a joint care arrangement with a view of eventually returning B to their parents' care. However, in our view, the council unreasonably failed to commit to a position in respect of A's kinship care status until the joint care arrangement became untenable. Based on the circumstances detailed in C's complaint, we concluded that A should have been assessed as a kinship carer from the date B was placed with A. Therefore, we upheld this complaint. C also complained that A was not aware B received Disabi

Mr C complained that the council had failed to handle a planning application reasonably. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that, although there had been some minor errors in the information provided by the council to the planning committee, these had not had a material impact on the decisions reached. We found that the council had followed its procedures correctly, and that whilst we recognised that Mr C was concerned and distressed about the handling of the planning application and the proposed development, his disagreement with the professional judgement of the council's planning officers was not evidence of maladministration. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201806149 as a PDF (24.02 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow a reasonable process in deciding to alter the foster carer's mileage allowance. The decision to change the mileage rate was a discretionary decision which the council were entitled to take. However, where there is a complaint that the discretionary decision was made without following a reasonable process, our office are entitled to investigate. The council did not provide evidence that they had followed a reasonable process when altering the mileage rate. As no evidence was provided to support the specific mileage rate identified, or evidence of research to support the council's view that the new rate covered fuel costs for foster carers prior to the decision being made, the complaint was upheld.

Mr C complained that the council failed to take action within a reasonable timeframe to investigate the concerns he reported about his child, including the delay in the council speaking to his child about the concerns. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that, as Mr C's concern was not dealt with as a child protection investigation, there are not specific timescales that are required to be met. In light of this, the actions taken by the council and the timescales for the actions taken were not unreasonable in the circumstances. However, we found that there were delays in recording the referral Mr C made to the council and the action taken by them in response to Mr C's referral. We also found that there was no contemporaneous record of the decision not to progress Mr C's referral while the allocated social worker was on leave. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that the council failed to handle his complaint reasonably. We found that the council's response did not address a particular aspect of Mr C's complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council failed to handle his complaint reasonably.

Mr C complained about the council's failure to follow the procurement process when seeking contracts for works. Mr C stated that he did not receive requests for tenders when, according to the procurement process in place, he should have been invited to provide a quotation for the jobs. Mr C provided details of several contracts which he considered were unfairly awarded to someone else, without the proper process being followed. We found that, in relation to one of the contracts, Mr C stated that the council unreasonably included additional works under the original tender. We confirmed that this office was not permitted to investigate the terms of concluded commercial contracts and whether or not this additional work was covered under the existing terms. In relation to another contract, Mr C stated that three contractors were not contacted for quotes as required for the value of the contract. The council were unable to provide evidence that the procurement process had been followed in line with the value of the contract. However, we also looked at several other works instructed by the council and noted that in relation to these, the council followed the procurement requirements in relation to the value of the contracts. Overall, we considered that the council had acted reasonably and did not uphold Mr C's complaint. In our feedback to the council, we highlighted the one instance where we considered the process had not been followed for a low value contract and asked the council to note the importance of adhering to the legislation. Related reading View Decision Report 201706718 as a PDF (24.04 KB) Updated: February 20, 2019

Mrs C complained to the council about social work involvement in the care her late mother received whilst in a care home. Mrs C considered that the way the council handled her complaint was unreasonable and that the action plan they created as a result of the complaints investigation did not adequately address the failings identified. We upheld Mrs C's complaint about the handling of her complaint as we found it had not been acknowledged within the appropriate timescales. We took independent advice in relation to the council's action plan from a social work adviser. We found that whilst the action plan points themselves may have been reasonable, insufficient information had been supplied to Mrs C to allow her to understand how these had been implemented by the council. We also found that the action plan did not cover an area where failings had been identified. We considered this was unreasonable as the council had an adult support and protection role in this connection. We upheld this complaint and made recommendations to address the failings identified.

Mrs C complained that the head teacher of her child's school did not follow procedures to deal with disruptive behaviour in class or alleged bullying. She also complained about the council's handling of her complaint. We found sufficient evidence that the head teacher followed relevant procedures to deal with disruptive behaviour, and that the council's handling of Mrs C's complaint was reasonable. In relation to bullying, we found there might have been one incident where the head teacher did not record a bullying incident. In relation to other incidents of alleged bullying, we found no evidence that the head teacher was aware of them or had been made aware of them by Mrs C, her child, or school staff. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201706306 as a PDF (10.87 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C submitted a request to withdraw her children from primary school with the intention of home educating them. Around two weeks after Mrs C submitted her request, an incident occurred with one of her children and a playground assistant which Mrs C reported to the police. Following this, a concern was raised about Mrs C's wish to home educate her children. A referral was made to the Children's Reporter (CR) and as a result, consent to withdraw the children from the school roll was withheld for some six months. The CR concluded that grounds for referral were not met and consent to withdraw the children from school to home educate them was eventually granted. Mrs C complained that the depute head teacher failed to follow the appropriate policy and procedures in respect of the recording of physical intervention, after the incident involving the playground assistant. The council's policy on physical intervention states that this should be used only as a last resort when all other strategies have been exhausted. It may be used to de-escalate or prevent a violent or potentially violent situation but must not be used to enforce discipline or compliance. We found that the use of physical intervention was not justified in terms of the policy, and the council should have recorded the incident. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. Mrs C also complained about the referral to the CR. She was referred on care and protection grounds, namely that her children were absent from school without reasonable excuse. Mrs C said that the council pursued non-attendance even though national guidance states that in most cases it would be inappropriate to initiate or pursue non-attendance procedures in respect of a child awaiting consent to be withdrawn from school. It was unclear from the evidence whether the referral to the CR came from police or the council (as both were involved), but there was evidence that the council encouraged the police to make a referral on the gro

Mrs C complained that the council failed to deal with her complaint in line with their procedures and that they failed to address her concerns about the school place allocations policy. The council had responded to and upheld a number of her concerns, agreeing to conduct a review of their policies as a result. However, they had told her that they could not respond to legal concerns under their complaints procedure, nor could they consider complaints that amounted to disagreement with policy. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us. We found that the council's complaints handling procedure (CHP) was not in line with the SPSO's model CHP for local authorities, which they have an obligation to ensure. This amounted to their CHP stating that disagreement with policy would not be considered through the complaints process, when the model CHP intends that these complaints, and legal complaints, should both be able to be responded to through the process. This had resulted in the council failing to respond appropriately to Mrs C's concerns. Therefore, we upheld both of her complaints.