SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the council had taken an unreasonable amount of time to mark an advisory disabled parking space at his home, and that the councils handling of his complaint was unreasonable. We found that the councils handling of both matters was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201804942 as a PDF (23.39 KB) Updated: July 24, 2019

Mr C was experiencing difficulty negotiating with his neighbour about a repair to the chimney head at his property. Mr C complained that the council provided inconsistent information about the council's roles and responsibilities in relation to the communal repairs. Mr C also complained about the way the council handled his complaint. The council issued a notice to Mr C and his neighbour, requesting that they take the appropriate action to repair the chimney head. The council explained that they would only carry out default repairs in exceptional circumstances. They also advised that the best option for Mr C would be to take civil action against his neighbour. The council acknowledged that they did not correctly follow their complaints handling procedure, and said that they have since recruited a complaints handling officer and provided training to their staff. We found that the council did provide consistent information about their role in relation to communal repairs and that they did not at any point advise that they would carry out the default repairs. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In relation to complaints handling, we found that the council did not correctly follow their complaints handling procedure as they failied to advise Mr C of his rights to bring his complaint to us. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C had a number of concerns about the council's administration in relation to council tax. Mr C lets a property within the council's area, and when the tenants of his property changed, he provided information to the council about the change by email. The council sent Mr C a paper form by post and requested that he complete this so that the change in liability could be processed. Mr C complained that the council asked him to provide information in this form that he had already provided by email. We found that the information Mr C had provided by email would not have been sufficient for the council to correctly establish liability for the new tenants. We were therefore not critical that the council asked Mr C to complete a change in tenant notification form. Mr C complained that the council had requested more information than was necessary to establish that a tenancy existed, and consequently that a tenant was the liable person. We found that the council had a policy to request a copy of the tenancy agreement as well as a copy of a special notice (an AT5 notice) that would make a tenancy a short assured tenancy. The council advised us that, although an AT5 was not required in terms of council tax legislation, they requested this document for a number of other reasons, including to promote best practice in the private rented sector. We were critical that the council had held Mr C to be the liable person for council tax when they held enough information to determine that this was not the case. We were also critical that the council's complaint response to Mr C was inconsistent with the council's guidance on tenancies and AT5 notices. We upheld this complaint and made recommendations. Finally, Mr C complained that the council had asked him to provide an AT5 notice to tenants retrospectively. We found that the council had acknowledged that a customer service representative had given improper advice regarding when an AT5 could be provided and had apologised to

Mr C and his then partner (Ms D) attended a multi-agency meeting at a school in the council's area regarding their foster son. Mr C was unhappy about the way he was spoken to at the meeting by one of the school's staff. Mr C complained to us that the council failed to reasonably investigate his complaint about the way in which he was spoken to at the meeting in line with their complaints procedure. Mr C's concerns included that the council's investigating officer should have interviewed all four of the meeting attendees to ascertain the truth and that the council's complaints procedure available to him online was out of date. He also said that the council failed to signpost him to us and had to be pressed to confirm that their complaints procedure had been completed. We considered that it was for the council's investigating officer to determine what evidence she needed in order to make a decision on Mr C's complaint. There was no requirement in the council's complaints procedure for her to have interviewed all persons present at the meeting. However, it would have been helpful if the council had explained to Mr C why they considered that the social worker at the meeting could be a corroborating witness for the member of the school's staff, but that Ms D could not be considered a corroborating witness for his version of events. The council acknowledged that the complaints procedure available online at that time was out of date. The evidence showed that the investigating officer failed to inform Mr C that her response was the final stage of the council's complaints procedure and the response did not refer him to us. This resulted in several months of unnecessary communications between Mr C and the council on his complaint. We were also concerned that the council failed to make and retain notes of key events in the handling of Mr C's complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Ms C raised a complaint about the educational support offered to her son while he was absent from school and when he returned to school on a phased basis. Ms C was also unhappy with the handling of her complaint. We noted that the council had apologised for the delay in Ms C's son's return to school, for the failure to send work home while he was absent from school, and for the delay in securing a technical teacher to assist her son. However, we were concerned that we were provided with no evidence of any structured approach to Ms C's son's return to school, any mechanism for monitoring the work he had missed, or a plan in place to ensure he could catch up with the work missed. We were also concerned that when Ms C's son returned to school, while there was a willingness to offer support, there appeared to be no structured plan in place to monitor how well he was catching up and whether any changes had to be made to the support being offered to him. We were also concerned that, while meetings to discuss Ms C's son continued during his senior phase of education, Ms C remained unclear about the support being proposed for her son. We upheld this part of Ms C's complaint. We were satisfied that the council had reasonably considered and responded to Ms C's complaint, and we did not uphold this part of her complaint.

Mrs C complained about how school staff handled a report of bullying of her daughter. While Mrs C was satisfied with the handling of the matter at the time, she became concerned some months later when the pupils involved in the bullying behaviour were given additional opportunities within the school. She raised this with the school, as she thought that the bullying incident had been recorded on the pupils' education record, but the school told her the bullying was only recorded on the school's bullying log. Mrs C was dissatisfied with this, and she was also concerned that the school referred to the incident as an 'allegation of bullying' in their later correspondence with her, whereas she thought it had been agreed that bullying had occurred. The council said the school handled the incident appropriately and in line with their bullying policy (which encourages a restorative approach). We asked the council to clarify whether they had found that bullying had occurred as this was not clear from the bullying log, and they confirmed that the incident had been recorded as one of bullying behaviour. After investigating the matter, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. We found that staff complied with most aspects of the school's and the council's policies, including involving parents, arranging a restorative meeting and supporting Mrs C's daughter. However, the bullying log completed by the school did not match the form set out in the council's policy, so there was no detailed contemporaneous record of the investigation and findings. We also found that staff did not appear to be familiar with the school's bullying policy which required the incident to be recorded on the pupils' records, and they were following the council's bullying policy instead (which did not include this requirement).

An advocacy agency complained on behalf of a client (Mr C) that the council had failed to take reasonable account of his circumstances when considering his application for a Community Care Grant under the Scottish Welfare Fund. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint because our investigation found no evidence that in their handling of Mr C's application, the council had not taken reasonable account of his circumstances or considered the matter properly under both the Scottish Government guidance and their own procedures. Related reading View Decision Report 201405826 as a PDF (10.81 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was involved in correspondence with the council about a transport issue and submitted a complaint. He received an acknowledgement email but no further response from the council that referred to the complaint or dealt with the issues he had raised. Mr C raised his complaint with us. We found that the council had received the complaint but a procedural failure meant that the relevant department had not taken action on it. In light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations.

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the way the council dealt with their antisocial behaviour complaint. They complained that the council failed to force the landlord of a neighbouring property to repair and soundproof their premises. They also complained that the council failed to deal with the antisocial behaviour of the tenant and that the council's senior investigator threatened them. We told Mr and Mrs C that the first complaint was not ready for our office as it had not been through the council's complaints procedure and we felt that we could not reach a supportable conclusion on the third complaint. Our investigation, therefore, considered only how the council handled the antisocial behaviour complaints. We looked at how Mr and Mrs C's complaints were recorded, what action the council took and whether they took into account the relevant policies and legislation. We found that the complaints were recorded on the appropriate database, that the council took account of the relevant internal procedure and the relevant legislation, and that they had made attempts over a prolonged period of time to resolve this in line with their process. As the council had done as they should have and had implemented their procedure reasonably, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201400634 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C had complained to the council about antisocial noise in her building. This had been a problem for some time and she felt that the council had failed to address the underlying issue. A flat that was the source of some of the noise was owned privately with a high turnover of tenants, and Ms C said that this contributed to the ineffectiveness of the council's approach as she felt that it had been addressed on a 'tenant-by-tenant' basis, rather than as a continuing issue. She was also dissatisfied with the way that the council handled her complaint and their responses, and she raised her complaints with us. We explained that we did not have the legal power to address the alleged antisocial behaviour on her behalf. However, we did consider the way that the council had handled her complaints. Although Ms C questioned the council's reasons for handling matters in a certain way, this in itself, does not automatically mean that they mishandled her complaint. For example, the council had provided explanations and, although Ms C did not agree with them, these had explained the council's position. When we reviewed the correspondence, however, we felt that it indicated that the long-term problems had had a significant and distressing effect on Ms C. We took the view that the council's responses did not appear to have taken this into account, and we noted that there were delays in replying. We found they had also failed to keep Ms C updated about how matters were being progressed and so, on balance, we agreed that the council failed to deal with her complaint appropriately.

Ms C complained that the council failed to properly deal with a complaint made by her neighbour’s tradesman about the condition of Ms C’s property. She raised concerns about eight issues related to the council’s actions. She also complained that the council did not deal properly with her complaint about this. Our investigation found that the council acted directly on a complaint from a tradesman about the condition of Ms C’s property without first carrying out their own investigations. They, therefore, did not act completely independently. We also found that the council unreasonably failed to tell Ms C about missing and leaking guttering and apparent water staining on the blind on one of her rooms. We were particularly concerned about the council’s lack of record-keeping in this case and addressed this in our recommendations. On the issue of complaints handling, there was no evidence that the council investigated Ms C’s complaint in line with their own complaints procedure. The evidence also showed that Ms C raised 11 issues in her letter of complaint to the chief executive, which he did not address in his response.

Mr C complained that, following the completion of a new school behind his property, his garden was experiencing flooding during heavy rain. Mr C was unhappy with the council's handling of his complaints about this and said that they had unreasonably failed to resolve the problem. He was also unhappy with the council's handling of his representations. During our investigation we were satisfied that the council had provided evidence that they had taken action in an effort to resolve the problems. While Mr C remained dissatisfied, they were satisfied there was no other work they could reasonably carry out. They had said that maintenance work would be carried out to ensure the drainage system continued to function as designed. We, therefore, did not uphold this complaint. We did uphold his complaint about how they had handled his representations, as we found evidence that the council had failed to deal with Mr C's complaint in line with their complaints procedure.

When Mr C's neighbour was granted planning permission for an extension to his house in 2007, he objected to the application. His objections were considered and responded to in the planning report. In November 2011, after the development started, Mr C complained to the council that the application was not reasonably considered. The council replied but Mr C was dissatisfied with their responses and complained to us that no impact assessment had been carried out and that the drawings submitted with the application had not been accurate. As part of our investigation, we obtained independent advice from a planning adviser. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council had acted appropriately within their professional discretion. Related reading View Decision Report 201104973 as a PDF (11.03 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to a neighbouring property. In particular, she said that the council had failed to take into account her concerns about loss of privacy and traffic implications. During our investigation we found that the council had in fact taken into account Mrs C's concerns. We were also satisfied that they had followed the relevant process and acted appropriately. Related reading View Decision Report 201100968 as a PDF (16.21 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had failed to follow their anti-bullying policy in relation to recording and monitoring alleged incidents of bullying involving his son. The investigation found that the council had initially failed to complete the relevant forms as the school had allowed for a settling in period before using the forms. The council did, however, provide evidence that they had recorded all incidents of bullying and had used the appropriate forms as the school term had progressed. Recommendation We recommend that Inverclyde Council: • ensure that their staff act in accordance with their anti-bullying policy in relation to the use of the appropriate forms for recording and monitoring. Related reading View Decision Report 201000187 as a PDF (18.19 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018