SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the council's handling of reports they made about their neighbours' antisocial behaviour. They reported a number of incidents to the Police and to the council's Antisocial Behaviour and Private Sector Services teams. Although C's reports were investigated, they were dissatisfied with the action that was taken by the council. C complained that the council failed on multiple occasions to respond to their contacts or took an unreasonable length of time to respond. C submitted a formal complaint to the council. Again, they considered that the council took an unreasonable length of time to respond to their concerns and inappropriately assigned an individual who was involved in the matters they complained about to conduct the investigation. We found that although the council communicated clearly and regularly with C regarding their ongoing reports of antisocial behaviour, more could have been done to explain their assessment of the situation and the reasons why no formal action was being taken. We found that the council failed to follow their complaints handling procedure. There were delays in responding to C's complaint and it would have been better practice for the complaint to be investigated by someone with no involvement. On balance, we upheld C's complaint.

C complained that the council failed to respond appropriately to concerns they raised about their child (A) who had cancer. C was separated from A's other parent (B) and, at the time A became ill, both C and B shared A's care on an equal basis and had Parental Responsibilities and Rights in relation to A. C was concerned about aspects of A's care and quality of life during their illness. C raised concerns that B repeatedly acted against medical advice, and acted aggressively and was abusive to C and C's partner while A was present. C complained about the way social workers and A's Named Person (a central point of contact if a child, young person or their parent(s) want information or advice) dealt with their concerns. C complained that during A's illness council staff acted unprofessionally and did not take their repeated requests for help seriously. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council should have more fully investigated the concerns C raised about A's welfare. In particular, they should have made contact with a relevant health professional involved in A's care to clarify whether they shared C's concerns. The council had a statutory duty to make enquiries in connection with A's welfare, to satisfy themselves that A was not at risk. We found that the council failed to meet their statutory obligations in this regard. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint. C complained about the council's complaint handling. We recognised this was a difficult and complex complaint for the council to investigate, but we were critical of a number of aspects of the complaint handling. We recognised that the complaint investigation spanned some of the COVID-19-related lockdowns, when services were adversely impacted. However, we found that the council not only failed to meet the relevant timescales in accordance with their complaints handling procedure, they also failed to keep C updated regarding progress. We were critical of the complaint

C complained about the council’s actions in response to a child protection concern about their child (A) particularly about information shared with the Police and the conduct of specific social workers. After C received a copy of the report relating to the child protection concern, they submitted a complaint. Remaining dissatisfied with the council’s response, C brought the complaint to our office. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that, while the initial actions by the council in response to the child concern were reasonable, the council failed to reasonably gather and record information throughout the investigation, and in so doing failing to follow national guidance. There was no evidence that appropriate checks were made before A’s family member (B) became temporarily responsible for A’s welfare or that appropriate action was taken after C advised the council that A’s health was being impacted by the arrangement. There was no evidence that the council provided a reasonable rationale behind their decisions for this case or that relevant legislation was appropriately utilised, and records kept of the same. This was unreasonable and we upheld C's complaint.

Ms C complained that the council unreasonably failed to carry out parenting capacity assessments to establish whether Ms C was able to look after her child (Child A). Ms C also complained that the council failed to carry out reasonable assessments to inform decisions about Child A's care. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that decisions made regarding the parenting assessments were reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we noted that changes to the planned actions in relation to these assessments should have been discussed and recorded with 'Looked After Child' (LAC) review minutes, with the reasons recorded as to why the plan had changed. We found that while the assessments of Child A's parents were reasonable, based on the information available, the kinship carer assessment was unreasonably delayed, which was a key assessment to inform future decisions about Child A's care. It was also found that not all LAC reviews were appropriately documented or carried out in a reasonable timescale. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C is a kinship carer and he approached the council to apply for kinship care allowance. The council approved his application to the date of application; however, they did not agree to backdate his payment to the date that the Scottish Government introduced a change to the eligibility for kinship care assistance. The council explained they were not required to backdate the payment as the Scottish Government did not legislate on the matter and only issued guidance, therefore they had discretion as to whether to follow that guidance. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow national guidance when considering his request to backdate kinship care payments and that they failed to provide the appropriate information about entitlement to kinship care assistance in line with their obligations. We found that while the council are required to consider the guidance, they do have discretion as to whether they apply it as it is not statutory legislation. We found that the council failed to provide contemporaneous evidence which they based their decision on to not backdate Mr C's application for kinship care assistance. The council only provided retrospective accounts of how those decisions were made. We considered that decisions about whether to follow Scottish Government guidance should be carefully documented and in this case it was not. We upheld this aspect of the complaint on the basis that the council failed to clearly record the rationale for their decision. However, our investigation found that the council provided appropriate information about entitlement to kinship care assistance in line with their obligations when the Scottish Government introduced changes to the legislation. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C complained that the council failed to transfer a drain serving his property to a water provider. He also complained that they had failed to keep proper records and that they had failed to handle his complaints correctly. We found that the council did not have a statutory obligation to transfer private drains to the water provider. We noted that they had asked the water provider to adopt the drain in question into the national network, but they declined to do so. We considered that the council had no obligation to keep records relating to private drains and had responded to Mr C's complaints reasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201801045 as a PDF (23.56 KB) Updated: March 20, 2019

Ms C complained about the way that the council dealt with a planning application. In particular, she raised concerns about the pre-application consultation (PAC) process to give the local community an opportunity to provide their views. Ms C was also concerned that the council did not hold a biodiversity duty document. Ms C also complained about the way the council responded to her complaints. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the PAC process had been carried out appropriately, and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We found that the biodiversity document was not held by the council, despite a statutory requirement for them to hold this. We upheld this part of Ms C's complaint. Regarding the council's complaints handling, we found that, until the related planning application had been finally determined, it was premature for complaints about its handling to be made to the council. However, we found that this was not explained to Mrs C and that there were delays in responding to her. We, therefore, upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C moved to a new property through a mutual exchange. She complained to the council about repairs that were outstanding and the overall condition of the house. The council arranged for a building condition survey to be carried out, and it found that a number of significant structural repairs had to be carried out, including an internal wall which had to be rebuilt. Ms C had been told by the council, prior to moving in, that the wall would be rebuilt and that all outstanding repairs would be completed. Ms C was also concerned that she was not given the opportunity to view the property before she accepted it. Ms C complained to us that the council unreasonably failed to follow correct policy and procedure regarding the mutual exchange, and that they failed to ensure the property was made available in an appropriate standard of repair. Ms C also complained that the council unreasonably delayed in carrying out the agreed repairs to the property in line with their policies. In response to our investigation, the council told us that it was not standard procedure for a tenant to be offered the opportunity to view the property before a mutual exchange. However, they have since updated their policy to ensure that this happens. We found that even though the mutual exchange inspection by the housing officer confirmed that the property was in good condition, the property should not, in fact, have been approved for exchange. We also found that the council unreasonably delayed in completing the repairs for Ms C and that the council had acknowledged this. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Ms C and Mr C complained about the level of consultation carried out by the council in relation to a site planning brief issued by them proposing that an area of open space on a former school site be released, in part, for housing. We reviewed the steps taken by the council when undertaking the consultation and also considered the procedural and legal duties imposed on the council in respect of consultation. Having done so, we were of the view that the consultation carried out was proportionate and in line with the council's responsibilities. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508386 as a PDF (10.86 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to us about the council's handling of her complaint about the direct payments awarded to her for the care of her mother (Mrs A). Mrs A has Alzheimer's disease and is cared for in Ms C's home. We found that the council should have dealt with Ms C's initial correspondence as a complaint, but had failed to do so. When Ms C then made a further complaint, there was a delay in acknowledging this and in letting her know how it would be handled. In view of these failings, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C had then taken her complaint to a social work complaints review committee (CRC), as she was unhappy with the council's response. She complained to us that the CRC had failed to adequately consider some of the points she had raised. In social work cases, there is a separate social work complaints procedure that has been set up by law and ends in an appeal to the CRC. We can look at the CRC process to ensure it has been properly followed, however, this does not include looking at the subject of the complaint to the CRC or reviewing their decision. Whilst we can look at whether or not the CRC took evidence into account, we cannot review how they used this evidence in reaching their own conclusions. In Ms C's case, we were satisfied that the CRC had considered the points she had raised. It was for the CRC to decide on the issues presented to them and on how much weight to give to the information they received from Ms C and the council. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Finally, Ms C complained that the council had not complied with the CRC's recommendations. Whilst we recognised that Ms C was unhappy with the action taken by the council in response to the CRC's recommendations, we were satisfied that they had complied with the recommendations. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Mr C complained that he had been required by the council to pay an additional fee when renewing his taxi licence. The payment was for the provision of a taxi marshal service, which had then taken 22 months to provide. Mr C said he believed the council had acted unreasonably. Mr C also said his complaint on the matter had been ignored by the council. We found that the payment was taken prior to the scheme being set up, as it was a requirement that taxi administration be self-funding. It was, therefore, unavoidable that there would be some delay between the payment being taken and the scheme starting. The council had provided evidence that the creation of the new position required a significant re-organisation of the operational area in which it sat. It had then subsequently been delayed by a change in legislation. We found that the council had kept the taxi liaison group properly informed during this period and that there was no evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with the scheme. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. The council had acknowledged that their initial response to Mr C's complaint was late. We found that this was due to human error, rather than systemic failure and although we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint, it was not proportionate to make any further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201502023 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to carry out a full and proper investigation into the complaint he raised about the provision of a service from the social work department. It was not clear to us why the council had failed to offer Mr C the opportunity to have his complaint considered through the social work complaints process and request a complaints review committee hearing (CRC). We sought legal advice which confirmed Mr C's entitlement to request a CRC. Having obtained this advice we approached the council who agreed with our interpretation of the regulations and agreed to allow Mr C to request a CRC. As this was the proper route to have his concerns explored, we advised Mr C of this step and closed our file. Related reading View Decision Report 201405948 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the demolition of two sites close to his property. In particular, he was concerned that he had not received neighbour notification prior to the demolitions being carried out. He also complained that the council had failed to respond reasonably to his concerns about the two sites. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. During our investigation the council provided evidence of the action taken in relation to both sites which included instructing emergency action in relation to one of the sites under the terms of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. We found no evidence which required that neighbour notification should have been carried out prior to the demolitions carried out on both sites. Overall we were satisfied that that the council had taken reasonable action in response to the concerns raised about the two sites, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201405244 as a PDF (11.04 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, a council tenant, told us the council were unreasonably imposing a weekly charge for a shower. There was a shower in the flat when she moved in. Ms C said that when she signed the tenancy she assumed that the weekly shower charge was just a normal rent charge. When she asked the council about it she was told the shower could not be removed and replaced with a bath. Ms C felt she had paid unnecessarily for a basic shower which she could have had installed herself for a much lower cost. We found the council's shower installation programme was designed to offer choice to tenants, at no cost to the council. Councils have a limited budget to spend and must decide how to use their resources carefully. It was the council's policy to impose a weekly charge for the shower installed in Ms C's home. The council provided details of the calculations, which covered a 30-year period, on which the shower charge was based. We found that Ms C exercised choice in taking the tenancy on and that the council made her aware that there was a weekly charge for the shower which was additional to the rent. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407336 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that for the four years her son (Mr A) had been a pupil at a school within the council area, no assessment was made of what extra support he required, and teachers did not provide supportive evidence. This was despite her requests that her son was assessed to determine what extra support needs he had. She said that after Mr A left the school, he began to attend a local further education college where he was given a full psychological assessment. The associated report confirmed that Mr A had signs of dyslexia. Mrs C believed that as a consequence of the school's actions, Mr A did not perform as well as he could have in his exams. She said that his self confidence had been detrimentally affected. Our investigation found that throughout Mr A's school career, whenever Mrs C had asked for his support to be considered, her request was reviewed in terms of the council's policy and, where necessary, appropriate support was provided. Mr A was given the means by which he could perform to his best ability and he performed as had been predicted (and on occasion better) in an independent assessment all pupils had been given. Furthermore, although Mrs C requested special adjustments for Mr A during his exams, his teachers' views had been obtained and assessed and the Scottish Qualifications Authority consulted and it was determined, on this basis, that he did not require extra support. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201404558 as a PDF (11.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C submitted a quote to the council to provide them with equipment for a piece of work they were doing. He explained that he prepared a specification and submitted the quote on the basis that he would be considered a 'specialist supplier' and that, as a result, no other tenders would be sought for this work. He made clear in his quote that it included a fee for the preparatory work which would only be payable in the event that he was not considered a 'specialist supplier'. He said that the council subsequently sought two further quotes and awarded the tender to another party. He complained to us that the council had said he would be considered as a specialist supplier and yet they awarded the contract elsewhere, that they did not treat all three companies who tendered in a consistent way, and that they refused to pay his fee. The council said that Mr C was never told he would be the sole bidder and that they were unable to tender in this way. They said that they did treat all three companies consistently and that they would not pay the fee as they did not agree to the specialist supplier status. We could not say whether Mr C was advised that he would be considered a specialist supplier. We did find, however, that the council had not followed the correct procedure as they approached him for a quote before seeking two further quotes. They should have obtained all three simultaneously. We also found conflicting comments about the extent to which Mr C's tender was used to develop the brief and specification for the other quotes, and we questioned the council's assumptions that tenderers may not be able to complete the work within the deadline. We also noted that they did not notify Mr C of the outcome of the tender. As the council had not followed the correct process when tendering for the contract and as, on balance, we were not convinced that all tenderers were treated in the same way, we upheld this aspect of his complaint. We recommended that they review their pro

Mrs C moved back to the council's area to care for family. She accepted the council’s offer of an upper villa flat which had an intercom service to wardens in a nearby sheltered housing complex, although she was fit and active and had no need of the service. The council upgraded the intercom service at the start of 2012. Mrs C then began to be disturbed each morning with switchovers of warden shifts and an early call from the wardens to her downstairs neighbour, who was deaf. This caused her stress and she requested a house transfer. When Mrs C complained, the council disconnected her intercom service and insulated the cable conduit to reduce noise leakage between the two flats. The remaining problem was a matter of acoustic noise transference of conversations between the two properties. Our investigation did not find grounds to uphold Mrs C’s complaint that the council had unreasonably failed to deal with the problems of the intercom system but in the circumstances, given Mrs C’s wish to move, we made a recommendation to address her concerns.

Mr and Mrs C complained that an alleged incident of bullying involving their daughter was not handled according to procedure, and that the council failed to fully deal with their complaint. Mr and Mrs C said that neither the school nor the council had followed their own policy in handling the alleged incident. They also said that they had only been told about the incident five weeks after the alleged event, and their daughter said that it had not been discussed with her. An inaccurate letter about bullying had also been kept on their daughter's file. We upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that the alleged incident was not investigated, the parents were not informed promptly and evidence was not gathered as laid out in both the council's and the school's anti-bullying policies. The school had also not reviewed its policy, as set out in the council's policy. We found that the council's investigation into the matter was inadequate as, although they acknowledged there were significant faults in the process followed by the school, they upheld the decision to retain the disputed letter on file. The evidence provided by the school did not demonstrate that they had followed policy. Additionally the council did not refer Mr and Mrs C to their complaints process, nor explain the stages and timelines they would work to.

Mr C complained about the council's landlord registration scheme. He said that the council had unreasonably put him on the register after a phone call, when their written guidance clearly says that applications should be made online or by paper application form. Our investigation found, however, that this was a discretionary decision that the council were entitled to make. We took the view that they acted in good faith for the benefit of Mr C, who might otherwise have been at risk of being reported to the procurator fiscal. Related reading View Decision Report 201203437 as a PDF (10.91 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that following a water leak in his property, the council treated the water mark and then painted the whole area with a magnolia anti-mould paint. He was unhappy because the hall had previously been painted white, not magnolia. The council had told him that rather than simply treat the affected patch with the anti-mould paint, the tradesman had painted the whole hall. While the colour was not his preference they believed that the decision to use the anti-mould paint was the correct one and that all reasonable steps had been taken to leave his home looking as good as possible. They confirmed that the anti-mould paint was only available to them in magnolia and did not think that further expenditure could be justified. During our consideration of Mr C's complaint we found that the hall had been repainted in white but that he remained dissatisfied with the workmanship, and that the paint used was matt while he wanted a silk finish. We found that the council had acted reasonably and did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201202153 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's tenant contacted him to say that he had received some advice regarding his tenancy from the council. Mr C complained to the council about the advice his tenant said he received. The council investigated Mr C's complaint. They aaccepted that the tenant had been given some poor advice and apologised for this. However, they told Mr C that there was no evidence to suggest that other aspects of advice the tenant claimed to have received, had been provided. Mr C was unhappy with this outcome and complained to our office that the council had not reasonably responded to his complaints. We investigated and found that the council had reasonably investigated Mr C's complaints, apologised appropriately to him and taken action to correct any errors they had made. As a result, we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201003234 as a PDF (16.44 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council, in their capacity as landlord, did not tell him whether self-closing fire doors need to be fitted in his home or if the door that they had fitted in June 2011 met the Building Standards Regulations (Scotland) Act 2006. He also complained that the council did not respond to his complaint within a reasonable timescale and did not give him sufficient information to evidence that their actions were in line with the relevant building regulations. We upheld some of Mr C's complaints. We found that the property had been built prior to new regulations which apply only to new buildings or existing buildings undergoing major structural change. There was, therefore, no requirement for the council to replace Mr C's door to the current building regulations. However, we found that the council did not clearly explain this to him following his enquiry. We also considered that they did not respond to the complaint according to their complaints procedure, and did not provide information (that they had agreed to give Mr C) until after the complaint had been raised with us. We did not find any evidence to show that Mr C had asked the council whether the kitchen door that had been replaced met the relevant building standards regulations. Recommendation We recommended that the council: • highlight to the housing department management team the importance of updating complainants on the progress of their complaint and ensuring clear and full responses are provided at all stages of the complaints procedure. Related reading View Decision Report 201101497 as a PDF (22.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C is a council tenant, who complained to the council about maintenance issues. He was specifically concerned about damaged trees, re-location of grit bins, a loose aerial, roughcasting repairs, rhone cleaning, and a missing skirting board and badly fitting extractor in his house. He was also dissatisfied with how his complaints about these matters had been handled. In our investigation we reviewed the council's actions in all of these areas, noting that the matters had been ongoing for some time and that Mr C had had considerable contact with the council about them. We were, however, satisfied that the maintenance issues had been, or were being, dealt with in line with the council's relevant policies and procedures and that the council had handled his complaints appropriately and in line with their complaints procedure. Related reading View Decision Report 201103894 as a PDF (16.51 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lived in a sheltered housing complex. He complained that the council wrongly cautioned him about antisocial behaviour after a complaint was made against him that claimed he was responsible for noise nuisance. We found, from looking at the information provided by Mr C and at the council's records, that the council issued the caution in the knowledge of the relevant facts available to them at the time. Mr C was given an opportunity to discuss the complaint against him, but did not take up that opportunity in time. Despite this, the council later considered Mr C's evidence. This did not, however, change their view that the caution was apropriate. We found that the council acted in line with their policy and procedure for dealing with antisocial behaviour, and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201005261 as a PDF (16.44 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's mother told the council that repairs were required to gutters and to the seals around the bedroom window of her council house. When she asked the council about this over the next five months, she was told that the repairs were in hand. When this did not happen, Mr C formally complained and new instructions were issued to repair both the guttering and the window sealants. Mr C also believed that, as a gesture of good will, the council should make a payment to his mother for the inconvenience. While dealing with the complaint, the council's director of housing had offered to redecorate but by then Mr C's mother had already done so. We upheld Mr C's complaints that the council delayed unreasonably in carrying out repairs and in responding to the complaint. After Mr C contacted the council, the necessary works were put in place and the council apologised for the inconvenience caused to his mother, so we did not make any recommendations. We did not uphold his complaint that the council had unreasonably failed to make a good will payment to his mother, as they had already invited Mr C to submit a claim with details of the alleged loss. Related reading View Decision Report 201100939 as a PDF (16.92 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018