SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the process around a Looked After and Accommodated Child (LAAC) review meeting for their child (A) and the decision taken to end A’s residential placement. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the decision making was based on an appropriate needs assessment and that it was reasonable for the council to consider Self-Directed Support (SDS) options for respite, rather than continuing to fund a full time residential placement that A did not need. However, neither the assessment nor the LAAC review specified what form of respite was considered appropriate for A and why. It should have been made clear to A and C that overnight residential support was no longer required and why external agency respite options were not appropriate. We also found no evidence that the draft assessment was shared with A and C for their comments, and no record of discussion with the parents about the respite options prior to or at the LAAC review meeting. It was not clear how the council concluded SDS was in A’s best interests, or that this had been properly communicated to or discussed with C. We upheld C’s complaint.

C complained to the council about the way that their child’s school had responded to an incident of bullying in the playground. C also complained about the way this matter had been communicated to them as a parent of some of the children involved. We found that the council had responded to the incident in keeping with their policies and procedures and we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint. In relation to the school's communication with C about the incident, we found that there were inconsistencies within the councils own records about the point at which they became aware of C’s child being involved in the incident, and in relation to the school’s position on whether or not there was an area of the playground that was known to be difficult to supervise. Given the discrepancies within the council’s records, we upheld this part of C’s complaint.

C complained about the way in which the council discharged a planning condition. C told us that planning permission for a development of new properties located next to a busy road, included a condition which required the installation of a close boarded fence and/or earth bund at least 1.5 metres tall and enhanced glazing for rooms facing the busy road to mitigate noise. The developer was required to provide detailed plans in advance which would be subject to written approval. C also complained that the council failed to refer the issue to their Enforcement Team, which C believed to be contrary to the enforcement charter. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the process to discharge a condition should be transparent, properly recorded, and easily accessible as part of the public record. There had been failings in the way in which the decision was reached as the council failed to keep adequate records. We concluded that whilst the council appear to have considered the location and height of the fence when discharging the condition, they do not appear to have considered the quality. When new information came to light (about the quality of the fence and questioning whether the height of the fence was adequate) the council should have reviewed the evidence and reconsidered the adequacy of the information that they used to discharge the condition. In light of the evidence, we found that there was maladministration in the way in which the council made the decision to discharge the planning condition, which was unreasonable. We also found that the council unreasonably failed to investigate C’s concerns about the quality of the fencing. As such, we upheld C’s complaints.

C complained about the council’s handling of a planning application. Planning consent was approved for a development that was contrary to the Local Development Plan. Whilst C acknowledged that the Planning Committee were entitled to approve the development, they considered that, in doing so, the Committee failed to explain what material considerations had contributed to the decision to go against the Local Development Plan and approve the application. C also complained that a pre-determination hearing should have been held, but was not. C raised their concerns in a complaint to the council. They said that it took many months of repeated attempts to obtain a response from the council and, when the council did respond, C did not consider that their concerns had been addressed. We took independent advice from a planning specialist. There was no question that the Planning Committee had the authority to approve developments that were contrary to the Local Development Plan, as long as there were relevant material considerations, or justifiable reasons for doing so. We acknowledged the council’s position that the report of handling for the application set out the material considerations that had to be taken into account when determining the application and that this information was available to the Planning Committee when reaching their decision. However, the report of handling presented the material considerations with reference to the Local Development Plan and explained in detail why the Planning Officer considered the proposed development went against the Local Development Plan and why they recommended the application be refused. We found that there was a clear unexplained “leap” from the Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse, to the Committee’s decision to approve. We considered that there should have been a clear record of the reasons for approving the planning application in the minutes of the Committee meeting and in the decision notice. We were critical of t

C's complaints related to a council-run football pitch next to their home. C reported that the noise levels from the pitch, as well as foul language by the users of the pitch were reaching unreasonable levels, particularly later in the evening before the pitch closed at 10pm, and that this was keeping their young child awake. They explained that they had provided recordings to the council to evidence this, but that the council had refused to take action to address it. We found that the council had, in response to C's concerns, amended their letting terms and conditions to ensure that there were clear rules prohibiting unreasonable noise levels and language by renters of the pitch. However, the only steps that the council had taken to address this with users, was to send a general email about unreasonable noise to all renters of pitches they ran, warning that leases may be removed if terms and conditions were breached by unreasonable behaviour. Given that C had been providing clear reports and recordings of specific times and behaviours, we considered it was unreasonable for the council not to take any steps to raise these issues with the specific users responsible. We also considered that the council had failed to provide sufficient explanations to C of the kind of evidence that they would consider and how they would investigate their concerns. For these reasons, we upheld C's complaint.

C complained about the council's handling of their complaints about their child (A) being bullied at their local secondary school. They referred to a number of incidents which they reported to the school. They complained that the school failed to investigate these incidents adequately. They also complained that the council failed to investigate their complaint about the handling of the reports of bullying appropriately. We found that the school took steps to investigate the incidents in line with the relevant guidance and were helpful and supportive. However, in some instances it appeared that the school failed to speak to the pupils being accused of the bullying, failed to keep records of the steps taken in this regard and to provide C with follow-up contact in line with the relevant guidance. We also found that the council failed to respond to C's complaint about the handling of the bullying allegations in line with their complaints handling procedure. Therefore, we upheld these aspects of C's complaint. C also complained that the council failed to appropriately handle administrative aspects of their appeal against the council's decision, following C's placing request for A to attend another school. We did not find evidence of any failings in this regard and did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

C contacted their child's (A) primary school to report concerns about bullying. Two days later an incident occurred between A and other pupils in the school grounds involving a sharp object. C complained to the council about their response to their concerns and the actions they took to safeguard A. Unhappy with their response, C brought their complaint to our office. We found that the school had discretion to consider what was an appropriate response to allegations of bullying, and the response was in line with policy. We found the actions of the council were reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint. In relation to safeguarding, we found that the council exercised their professional judgement to assess the risks and put measures in place to mitigate those risks. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201904733 as a PDF (24.08 KB) Updated: May 19, 2021

C was in contact with the council in relation to their child's (A) transition from primary to secondary education. A had experienced negative behaviour while at primary school and C had concerns about A's safety as, if they transitioned to the secondary school linked with the primary school, the pupils involved in historic events would be attending the same school. C was in contact with the council about the assessments carried out in relation to A's safety and wellbeing and was seeking further information from the council in order to determine which school A would attend. The council restricted C's contact with them after some of their contact was deemed unacceptable. C complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide them with the information requested in order for C to make an informed decision about A's education provision. We found that the council had ensured a wellbeing assessment and risk assessment was carried out for A for the secondary school. C remained of the view that there were issues relating to A attending this school and alternative schools were offered. There was information which C requested which could not be provided and there were reasons for why the council could not provide this. As such we did not uphold the complaint. C complained that the council unreasonably expected C to make a decision about A's education provision without the information requested. While C remained of the view the level of information was insufficient, we found the level of information provided was reasonable in order for C to make an informed decision about A's schooling. It was reasonable for the council to expect C to make a decision based on the information available. We did not uphold the complaint. C complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide an accurate risk assessment relating to A's attendance at the secondary school. We found that a reasonable risk assessment was carried out which took account of the views of A and A's pa

Mrs C complained on behalf her daughter (Ms A) that Ms A had been unreasonably removed from the council's homeless waiting list for settled accommodation. After Ms A had been placed on the waiting list, she accepted a private let outwith the council area but did not inform the council of her change in circumstances. Ms A and her family were later sent a provisional offer for settled accommodation, which Ms A accepted, however the council noted in the course of their pre-allocation checks that Ms A had taken up a private let and no longer met the homeless criteria. As a result, the council withdrew the offer and removed Ms A from the homeless waiting list. We found that Ms A had signed an agreement to inform the council of any changes in circumstances, including a change of address, and she had not told the council that she had moved to a private let outwith the council area. Additionally, we found that in taking up the private let, she no longer met the criteria to be provided settled accommodation by the council and it was reasonable that the council removed her from the waiting list. As a result, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201809522 as a PDF (24.22 KB) Updated: September 23, 2020

Ms C complained that the council had failed unreasonably to respond to concerns she raised about the condition of the property and to carry out appropriate repairs to the property, after she took on the tenancy of the property from the council. In relation to complaint (a), Ms C complained in particular about the council's response to her concerns about the condition of the bathroom and noise insulation. From the available evidence we were satisfied that Ms C had accepted the condition of the bathroom when she signed for the property. Nevertheless, it appeared that the council had carried out a number of general repairs to the bathroom and intended carrying out further repairs. We considered there was evidence that the council responded reasonably to Ms C's concerns about the condition of the bathroom. Regarding Ms C's concern about noise insulation, we considered it was reasonable of the council to discuss this with Ms C as a noise complaint in the first instance, given that she had reported increasing noise from neighbours. We also noted that the council had provided Ms C with contact details if she wanted to pursue this further as a noise complaint. Having considered the matter carefully, we did not uphold this complaint. In relation to complaint (b), Ms C's concerns related a number of issues including the property's central heating system and hot water, the bathroom and flooring. We were satisfied from the evidence available that the council had carried out reported repairs to the property in line with their repairs policy. In the circumstances, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201807404 as a PDF (24.41 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

C complained about a number of matters relating to the primary school education of their child (A). C was firstly concerned about the way the school had handled their requests for A to receive educational support. We found that the school had arranged a number of assessments and also met C to discuss their concerns. We were satisfied that the school took into account the evidence available in reaching their view about whether A had support needs. We did not identify failings and we did not uphold this complaint. C was also unhappy about the level of information provided in relation to applying to a specific secondary school. We concluded that it was more likely than not that C received the standard information issued to parents about the right to make a placing request and details on how to do this. We did not find evidence that C requested additional information and that the council had failed to respond. We did not uphold this complaint. C further complained about the school contacting the social work service in relation to A. We considered the circumstances of the contact and the council's policy in relation to this. We did not conclude that the school acted inappropriately in the circumstances. We did not uphold this complaint. Finally, C raised concern that a council officer provided them with inaccurate information about what would be discussed at a meeting. We did not find evidence that C was misinformed in relation to this matter. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201807786 as a PDF (24.38 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mrs C complained that there was a failure by the council to thoroughly investigate incidents involving her child (Child A) at their primary school. She outlined four separate incidents which she felt had not been investigated appropriately and felt that the council's complaint investigation was biased towards the school. We found that a thorough investigation was carried out into each incident. We also considered that the council's complaint investigation into Mrs C's concerns was detailed and appropriate. We did not uphold the complaint. However, we suggested as feedback to the council that they may wish to consider whether having a policy or guidance regarding how incidents in school should be investigated and/or recorded would be of help to staff to ensure consistency within and across schools in their area. Related reading View Decision Report 201810306 as a PDF (24.07 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Ms C complained to the council on behalf of her son (Mr A) about a council property he moved into. Ms C complained that the council failed to carry out repairs to Mr A's property in line with their obligations and relevant policies and procedures. We agreed with the council that there may be snagging issues when someone moves into a new property. Therefore, we did not consider the fact there were repair issues after Mr A moved into the property to be unreasonable. However, we found some of the timescales and communication around repairs to be unreasonable. Furthermore, we did not consider the council always gave sufficient consideration to Mr A's personal circumstances, particularly when scheduling repairs and providing notification of visits. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. Ms C also complained that the council failed to carry out reasonable adaptations to Mr A's garden in line with their obligations and previous assurances provided to him. We noted the council's policies and guidance, which indicated that only basic work will generally be carried out in respect of garden areas before a new tenant moves in. Furthermore, we did not consider there to be evidence to suggest the council failed to carry out specific work or adaptations previously committed to. We agreed with Ms C that evidence she provided shows the garden was in a poor condition and not clear of rubbish when Mr A initially moved in, although this was addressed by the council later. We provided feedback to the council about this. However, we did not consider this to mean that the council failed to carry out reasonable adaptations to the garden. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Finally, Ms C complained that the council let the property to Mr A when it was not in a safe or reasonably suitable condition for him to move in. Ms C highlighted the number of repairs that were carried out after Mr A moved into the property and the fact that the windows in

Mr C complained about the secondary school his child (Child A) attended. He said that after his family had told the school of an incident which Child A had witnessed, the school failed to communicate reasonably with him regarding their progress and wellbeing. We found that the evidence showed that following the school being informed of the incident, this was appropriately discussed with Child A, and teachers were reasonably alert to any change in their behaviour or wellbeing. We determined that as there did not appear to be any cause for concern, there was no need for the school to communicate with Mr C. We also noted that Mr C and his family could have discussed any concerns they had with the school and they had appropriate opportunity to do so. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that following Child A's exam results, there was an unreasonable failure to communicate with him. We found that whilst the majority of communication was reasonable and timely, there was a failure to alert Mr C of the exam board's position on the potential to apply in retrospect for 'exceptional circumstances'. On this basis, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained to the council about her child (Child A)'s school. Ms C complained about the school's communication with her and about decisions made about Child A's education. Ms C said she felt excluded from decision-making and communication about Child A and that there was a lack of engagement by the school with the Children's Hearing arranged for them. Ms C also complained that the council failed to thoroughly investigate and respond to her complaints. In response to our investigation the council explained they found no evidence that the school informed Ms C of decisions about Child A's education, nor was there any information recorded about the reasons why these decisions were made. The council advised they recognised that the issue of invitations to hearings and meetings was an issue and explained that they had developed a system whereby there would be a single point of contact and invitations would be acknowledged once received. We found that the council failed to demonstrate that they carried out a thorough investigation of Ms C's original complaints and to respond to all of her complaints. The council could not provide evidence that they communicated with Ms C about the decisions made regarding Child A's education. While the council upheld part of Ms C's complaint, we noted that they did not provide an apology or any acknowledgement of the impact their failings had on Ms C or Child A. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Mrs C's child (Child A) was injured by another child while at school. Mrs C said that she was not contacted until around two hours after the incident and complained that the school failed to act in an appropriate and reasonable manner. Mrs C was also unhappy that the school had recorded Child A as being a participant in a fight rather than being assaulted and that the level of support provided to Child A after their return to school was unreasonable. In their responses to Mrs C, the council indicated that the priority after the incident was to establish what had happened. Their responses were unclear, however, in terms of whether they understood Child A to have been displaying signs of a head injury after the incident. The council stated that the school followed NHS advice on head injuries and provided us with a copy of this. However, we noted that there was no direct reference to the NHS advice in staff statements, incident reports or the council's response to Mrs C. In their response to Mrs C, the council acknowledged that they should have handled things differently and did not contact her soon enough. They also stated that they had a new procedure in place in respect of head injuries at school. However, the evidence we reviewed showed a confused account of events and, as a result, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. In respect of the school recording the incident as a fight, we considered this reasonable. We found that the school accepted that Child A had been assaulted and made clear that the reference to a fight was in relation to what lead up to the assault. The account recorded by the school was based on multiple accounts of what happened. In addition to this, we saw nothing in the evidence provided to us that indicated that the school held the view that Child A was partially or wholly at fault for the way the incident escalated. Finally, the council indicated that they were happy for additional information Mrs C wanted to record to be app

Mrs C complained that the council did not take adequate action to address bullying targeted at her child (Child A). She said that the sanctions applied to the other children were not adequate. The council confirmed that the school recorded and responded to the incidents reported to them appropriately. They said that some of the incidents occurred outside of school hours and, therefore, they were not aware of them. The school also delivered classroom based sessions to promote positive relationships and respect and offered restorative sessions / mediation to Child A. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us. We found that the council followed their procedures correctly. Incidents were recorded, and professional judgement was exercised regarding what action to take to address the incidents. The school offered weekly sessions to Child A, however, they acknowledged that these were taking place on an ad hoc basis. The council agreed to work with the school to improve this aspect of their procedures. We are satisfied that the school took reasonable steps to address Mrs C's concerns about bullying and did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201801136 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's handling of his planning application. Firstly, he complained that the council granted and then withdrew planning permission. The council had acknowledged that they had made an error when issuing his listed building consent, by using the template for planning consent rather than the correct listed buildings consent template. They were of the view that this was an administrative error and that, as such, the planning consent had not been legally granted. We were critical that the council had issued a decision on the wrong template, and we highlighted to the council that this could give the impression that plannng consent had been granted. As a result of this failure, and the failure to promptly and clearly clarify why the mistake was made and what would be done to correct the error, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. Secondly, Mr C raised concern that the council unreasonably disputed that his planning application included an access through a wall into a council car park. We took independent planning advice and concluded that the council had not disputed that access arrangements were included in the application. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Lastly, Mr C complained that the council unreasonably withdrew permission for him to form the access in the wall, despite having granted others access. He said that the council failed to take account of information he provided them with, which he considers proves his right of access. We were satisfied that the council had taken Mr C's evidence into account. Who has title or right of access is not something that we can determine, and this issue would need to be pursued through legal channels. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably determined that he owed them rent arrears after leaving his tenancy. Mr C was part of a joint tenancy, having joined the existing tenancy of other people who lived in a council flat. Mr C said that the arrears had arisen due to council errors in the existing tenancy, such as charging for insurance that was not needed, and not notifying the existing tenants of a rent increase. We found no evidence that the existing tenants notified the council that they did not need insurance. We noted that all tenants were liable to pay rent at the increased rate and that the tenancy agreement was clear that when the other joint tenants left and Mr C remained at the property, the tenancy continued. The council's procedure, in relation to former tenants' arrears, stated that the remaining tenant was liable for all outstanding arrears. In this case, Mr C was the remaining tenant. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201701484 as a PDF (11 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably applied their Unacceptable Customer Behaviour Policy (UCBP, a policy that outlines how an organisation will approach situations where the behaviour of individuals using their service becomes unacceptable, including any actions the organistion will take to restrict contact from the individuals concerned). The council decided to apply their UCBP on the basis that the correspondence received from Mr C placed an unreasonable demand on the business of the council. They confirmed that they would still accept Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. We found that the council were unable to provide enough evidence to support their decision to apply the policy. We noted that the correspondence recorded from Mr C was mainly based under FOI requests which the council had stated that they did not take into consideration when deciding to implement their UCBP. We also noted that the council were unable to access some correspondence as they had been issued to members of staff who had since left the council. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to take the appropriate action in response to her reports of her neighbour's anti-social behaviour. We found that the council had investigated Ms C's complaints in line with their procedures. Whilst we noted that Ms C does not wish to continue living at her property, the council have not received any further reports of anti-social behaviour, therefore they cannot be required to take any enforcement action. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201700795 as a PDF (10.81 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had carried out works to improve access to a site they owned at the same time as considering planning applications for the site. He was concerned that the works to facilitate access suggested that consent would be granted and, as such, prejudiced the planning applications. He was also unhappy with the consistency of the explanations he had received from the council about the access improvements. We noted that the council had planned these works for some time prior to the submission of any planning applications, but the works had been delayed and were only initiated around the time of the submission of the applications. We noted that the council were carrying out the access improvements to improve the marketability of the site. We found no evidence to indicate that carrying out the access improvements was in any way unreasonable or inappropriate, nor did we find any evidence that it had prejudiced the planning applications. Indeed, during the course of our investigations, one of the applications was refused consent by the council. For this reason, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, the council failed to provide us with any evidence to refute Mr C's claims that the information provided by the council during the course of his discussions with council officers and elected members was inconsistent and inaccurate. As we did not have any evidence to show that the council were consistent in their advice and information, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained that the council wrongly advised her about the financial contribution they would make towards her mother (Mrs A)’s care home fees. This money represented Mrs A's entitlement to free personal and nursing care. Free personal care is available for everyone aged 65 and over in Scotland who have been assessed by the local authority as needing it. Free nursing care is available for people of any age who have been assessed as requiring nursing care services. The council over-calculated her entitlement but, while council staff realised this within a few months, they did not notify Ms C or the care home of the reduced payment level for more than two years after Mrs A was first entitled to the payments. Ms C was unhappy that she was only then made aware that a large debt had accumulated and had not had the ability to budget or plan for this. The council accepted their initial miscalculation and offered to cover the additional costs until the point they had picked up the error. Ms C didn't consider this was fair or reasonable as the debt had continued to increase for a further 18 months before the council made anyone aware of the error. The council told us that they were putting new processes in place to ensure that changes to the contribution amount would be notified to relevant parties, and that the error in this case was a result of a manual input error which could no longer occur as the process had been automated. Our investigation found that the council's initial calculation was incorrect and that Mrs A was only ever entitled to the lower contribution amount. However, we considered that it was poor customer service and unacceptable not to advise Ms C of the correction as soon as reasonably possible. We, therefore, upheld the complaint.

Mr C raised a number of concerns relating to the planning consent for the erection of houses on a site close to his home. In particular, he complained that the council had failed to take action against the developer to ensure improvements to the state of the pathway constructed by the developer and to the area of pipework discharging into the burn. Mr C also raised concerns that the pathway had been constructed in a different location to that on the approved plans and was unlit. The location of the pathway and the requirement that it be lit was detailed in a condition attached to the planning consent. We took independent planning advice. We found that the action taken to amend the location of the path and to decide that the path should not be lit was likely to be contrary to sections 42 and/or 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. We were also concerned that the council had failed to keep Mr C updated on progress at the site and that they had failed to address his concerns about the location of the path. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C raised concerns about a decision by the council to reduce an award of discretionary housing payment (DHP). Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably based their decision on the length of time he had been receiving the award, rather than on his individual circumstances. Mr C also complained that in making the decision, the council had acted unreasonably by failing to consult their policy on the prevention of homelessness. We considered that, taking account of the relevant Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) guidance and their own DHP policies, the council had a wide discretion to reach a decision on Mr C's DHP application. We considered the council could take into account the length of time Mr C was in receipt of an award of DHP. We found no evidence that in making their decision, the council had not followed DWP guidance. We also found no indication in Mr C's DHP application form that he would be under threat of homelessness were his application not successful, which could have prompted specific consultation on the council's homelessness policy. We did not find that Mr C was made homeless by the decision to reduce his award of DHP. However, we considered the council should ensure their relevant housing team and revenues and benefits team liaise with each other in cases where a claim for DHP is being considered and which may involve the loss of a tenancy and possible homelessness. We made a recommendation in relation to this. Mr C sought a review of the council's decision. Mr C complained the council had acted unreasonably by allowing a manager to review a decision in which they had already taken part and by basing their decision during the review process on cash limits rather than a holistic approach required by council policy. We considered that the council officer was only restating the decision which had already been reached on Mr C's review request. We were also satisfied that the DHP fund was cash limited and considered that the council