SPSO Individual Decisions

C adopted a young child (A), however, the placement ended when C relinquished care via Section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 due to irreconcilable behavioural difficulties and a breakdown in the relationship. A was placed in the care of the council. C complained that the council unreasonably failed to produce balanced and accurate assessments in relation to child protection concerns and the breakdown of the adoption, and did not reasonably amend these reports when these matters were raised. C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to involve C in ongoing care planning considerations regarding A. Lastly, C complained that the council unreasonably failed to facilitate and enable contact between C and A following the invocation of the section 25 agreement. We took independent advice from a social worker adviser. We found that while it is an essential requirement that any reports be balanced and accurate, the council had failed to give a complete picture of the history of A’s early life, to reflect the positive aspects of C’s parenting, and to reflect the views of other agencies who had provided support to the family. Overall, the reports were of mixed quality and contained inaccuracies. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We also found that there had been failings in information sharing and case transfer between the council and C’s previous local authority. We also found a lack of formalised adoption support. Significantly, a referral had not been made to the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration following the adoption breakdown, and there were failings to involve C in ongoing care planning. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Lastly, we found that while continued attempts had been made to encourage contact, at the time of writing A, who had advocacy support, did not want to engage with C. The actions of the council were reasonable in this regard and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C, an advocate, complained on behalf of their client (A) about the social care assessment carried out by the council, and the council’s handling of A’s complaints. A has several long-term health conditions and requested a social care assessment due to concerns about gaps in their care arrangements. The complaints raised regarding the assessment included the timescales taken for completion of the assessment, whether A’s needs were fully and reasonably assessed, whether legal standards and good practice were appropriately taken into account, and whether the conclusions of the assessment were reasonable. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We determined that the social care assessment was unreasonable. This was because it was not carried out within a reasonable timescale, risks ratings appear to have been changed from ‘substantial’ to ‘moderate’ without explanation, and there was evidence on file to suggest that A’s financial means may have been a factor in assessing their needs and risks. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint. We also found that the council’s handling of A’s complaint was unreasonable, as they failed to appropriately log and respond to complaints, failed to contact A to discuss the complaints, failed to read documentation provided by A prior to a complaint meeting, and failed to respond to C and A’s outstanding concerns. We upheld this part of C's complaint.

C is an advocate for and representative of A. C complained that a social worker acting on behalf of the council failed to timeously apply for state benefits on A’s behalf despite providing an undertaking to do so. C complained that this failure lead to a loss of income for A resulting in rent and council tax arrears and that the council subsequently sought direct deductions from A’s state benefits to pay for these council tax and rent arrears. C further complained that the council failed to adequately communicate with A and their representatives. Finally, C complained that the council failed to adequately investigate or respond to the complaint. The council did not consider that there was any failure to apply for and manage A’s state benefits. Upon investigation, we found that there was an appointment of a social worker to undertake the application for state benefits on A's behalf. However, we found that there was a delay by the council in submitting an appointee application form. We found that A experienced an actual loss of income as a result. We also found that the council unreasonably sought direct deductions from A’s state benefits for council tax and rent arrears caused by these delays. We therefore upheld these aspects of the complaint. Whilst we did not uphold the aspect of C’s complaint that the council failed to communicate adequately with A, we found that the council failed to adequately investigate and respond to their complaint. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

C is a parent who lives with their partner (B). An allegation was made that C had used physical punishment to discipline their children and the children were removed from C and B's care. C complained that the children were removed without any evidence of wrongdoing on C's part. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the reason for the removal of the children was justified on the basis of the evidence available at the time. However, we considered concerns about the apparent lack of investigation into allegations which were made about B, incomplete forms, and the decision to return the children to C and B's care in advance of the outcome of the case. For these reasons we upheld the complaint.

Mr C complained that the council failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of a planning application submitted by a recreational club that shares a boundary with his property. Mr C also complained that the decision notice, granting planning permission for the application, unreasonably failed to accurately implement the decision of the planning committee. The council concluded that they had carried out an appropriate assessment of the planning application and the planning permission reflected the decision of the committee. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had carried out an appropriate assessment of the planning application. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. In relation to Mr C’s second complaint, we found that the council had unreasonably failed to accurately implement the decision of the planning committee. We found that the wording of the planning condition was ambiguous and open to different interpretation. We concluded that, by not making the condition explicitly clear, the decision notice did not reflect the intention of the planning committee members accurately. Therefore, we upheld this complaint. Mr C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to take action to ensure the club abided by what was outlined in their planning application and supporting documentation. The council considered that the actions taken by the club were in line with the planning permission granted and, as such, it was not appropriate for them to take any further action. We found that the council had unreasonably failed to take action to ensure that the club abided by what was outlined in their planning application and supporting documentation. By including a condition that was open to interpretation, the council failed to provide a clear and unambiguous decision. As such, this enabled the club to carry out actions contrary to their stated intentions when the planning application was determined. We recognised that it m

C’s property was flooded from an attic above where both they and the council had water storage tanks. The complaint concerned the council’s response to C’s concerns that they had been responsible for the damage to their home and about how the council responded to their associated compensation claim and complaint. We found that, after C’s insurance claim was made, it took the council seven weeks to provide information to allow the insurers to consider the matter. It took a further six weeks to provide information after being approached by the insurers for comments on their reasons for repudiating the claim. Furthermore, the council failed to comment on an apparent contradiction in those reasons. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint. However, we found no grounds to show that the council behaved unreasonably to C during and after the flood was reported. In addition, although C’s councillor raised the complaint on their behalf, there were no specific details or date logged in relation to this. Accordingly, it was not possible for us to determine whether or not the complaint had been appropriately addressed in a timely manner. We did not uphold these aspects of C's complaint.

C complained that the council had failed to reasonably administer their council tax account. They complained that the council had failed to keep accurate records of payments made to them. The council appointed sheriff officers to recover council tax debt. C complained that the council's failure to keep accurate records had resulted in sheriff officers trying to recover more debt than was due. We found that the council had kept accurate records and had taken enforcement action appropriately when C failed to keep up with regular payments of a satisfactory amount. We did not uphold the complaint. However, during our investigation we identified that the council did not make it clear to C at which stage of the complaints process they were considering C's complaint. We therefore made a recommendation under section 16G of the SPSO Act 2002, which requires the Ombudsman to monitor and promote best practice in relation to complaints handling.

Ms C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A). Ms C complained that the council failed to handle Ms A's request for kinship care allowance in an appropriate or reasonable manner. When Ms A lived in another local authority area, she was considered to be the kinship carer for her grandchildren and was paid kinship allowances. After she moved to the Midlothian area, Ms A approached the council to request kinship allowances. The council reviewed the household circumstances and concluded that Ms A was not the primary carer for the children. As a result, no kinship allowances was paid. Ms C complained that the council failed to handle Ms A's request for kinship care allowance in an appropriate or reasonable manner. Ms A also felt that she should have been treated as the main carer for the children. We took independent advice from an adviser with a background in social work. The adviser noted that it was a complex situation due to the number of local authorities involved and the frequent movement of the children and family during the period of time the complaint relates to. However, based on the information available, we found that it was appropriate for the council to carry out a review to establish the caring arrangements at the time. We also considered that the conclusions reached by the council appeared to be reasonable and based on appropriate evidence. Finally, we found that the evidence indicated that Ms A was treated fairly by the council during this process. We recognised that Ms A disputed the council's understanding of the family circumstances. However, we concluded that the council had acted reasonably and reached conclusions that were justifiable and based on appropriate evidence. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201803770 as a PDF (24.11 KB) Updated: May 22, 2019

Mrs C complained that the council failed to appropriately safeguard Mrs A and that they failed to carry out an appropriate adult support and protection investigation for Mrs A when she was hospitalised as a result of a fall. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the council's safeguarding of Mrs A was appropriate, as it respected her wishes and promoted her independence. We further found that when an adult support and protection concern was raised for Mrs A, the council considered this, liaised with appropriate individuals and services, and closed the enquiry. We found that this was reasonable, as whilst Mrs A was in hospital she was deemed not to be at risk of harm. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201800529 as a PDF (23.63 KB) Updated: January 23, 2019

Mr and Mrs C's two children are primary school pupils. Mr and Mrs C reported concerns to the school about on-going issues involving their children and another child. They decided to move their children to another school. Mr and Mrs C complained to the council for failing to take reasonable action in response to incidents involving their children and for failing to investigate their complaint in a fair and balanced way. The council explained that the other child had additional needs and that their behaviour towards Mr and Mrs C's children was not intended to be malicious or designed to bully them. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with this response and brought their complaint to us. We found that the school put in place the appropriate support to all children involved. We also noted that incidents involving the children were recorded and appropriate action was taken where necessary. With regards to the council's investigation of the complaint, we found that the council had appointed a teacher from another school as the investigating officer to ensure impartiality. We found the council's approach to their investigation to be well considered and reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201701238 as a PDF (11.1 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A). Ms C complained that the council unreasonably failed to respond to Mr A's complaints of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour. Ms C also complained about the council's complaints handling. Our investigation found that the council did not respond to Mr A's concerns in line with the requirements of their anti-social behaviour procedure. The council told us that they had addressed issues appropriately where they had corroboration, while other issues were more appropriately addressed by the police. Our investigation found that the council had not kept Mr A sufficiently updated regarding the progress or outcome of his complaint, and that their records of Mr A's reports of anti-social behaviour concerns were not sufficiently detailed. In terms of the council's own complaints handling, we found that Mr A had complained three separate times before he received an appropriate response. As such, the council had failed to respond to Mr A reasonably and in line with their timescales. We upheld both of Ms C's complaints.

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her concerns about alleged bullying at her son's school. Mrs C raised concerns that the council failed to formally record her concerns about bullying, failed to investigate these concerns, and failed to handle her complaint appropriately. The council advised that the school did not consider the behaviour complained about to be bullying, so it had not been recorded as such. They considered that this had been appropriately investigated. The council acknowledged there had been some confusion in the complaints process surrounding the appropriate procedure. After reviewing the council's complaints file and reviewing the relevant policies, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that there had been failures in recording the alleged bullying. In particular, the council's guidance suggested alleged incidents of bullying needed to be recorded on the Bullying Concern Initial Referral Form as such, not only cases where bullying was found to occur. In relation to Mrs C's concerns about investigating bullying, we found that there was evidence that the school had investigated the incidents and considered that they did not amount to bullying. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. Regarding the handling of Mrs C's complaint, we noted there were a number of issues, including confusion regarding the appropriate policy and delays in responding. Therefore, we considered the council had not adhered to their complaints handling policy, and we found the handling of the complaint to have been unreasonable.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to investigate within a reasonable timescale a complaint about his neighbour conducting a business from their home. He also complained that the council had failed to respond to his complaints. He said that the council's decision that there had been no breach of planning control had been made without all the facts required to make an evidence-based decision. We took independent planning advice which stated that the council could exercise its discretion when deciding whether a breach of planning control had occurred. Additionally, it was not unreasonable for the council to have decided how much weight to give to information submitted by Mr C, as opposed to the evidence gathered by its own offices. We found the council had conducted a lengthy and thorough investigation and whilst there had been delays, these had been due to engagement with government agencies over which the council had no control. We also found the council had reached a reasonable decision based on the evidence available to it. We found that although the council had responded to Mr C's complaints, it had not done so in a way that made it clear that the response was part of the complaints process, rather than the wider correspondence Mr C was having with the council. The council had recognised this when reviewing their investigation and taken action to address this failure. Related reading View Decision Report 201508677 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the council's decision not to allow her child to delay starting primary school. Mrs C was concerned that her original application for this had not been considered and that the council were unaware of this error until she raised it with them. Mrs C did not consider that the council had provided her with accurate information about delaying entry to primary one, or that they had shown that a proper assessment of her child's needs had been carried out. Mrs C also complained that the council had not followed their complaints handling procedure. Following our investigation, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that the council had not dealt with her application properly and noted that they had already provided her with an apology for this. We found that there was no system in place to confirm that all applications submitted via schools had been logged at the council's central pupil placement department. We upheld Mrs C's complaint about the information she was provided with as we found that this was confusing and lacked clarity. The complaint about the handling of her concerns was also upheld. We found that the council had already acknowledged this failing and apologised to Mrs C. After considering her concerns about the assessment of her child's needs, we found that there was evidence that this had taken place and, although this could have been better communicated to Mrs C by the council, we did not uphold this part of her complaint.

Mr C complained to us that the council failed to take appropriate action when his neighbour built an extension without applying for planning permission. Under planning legislation, if an extension is to be no more than four metres in height, planning permission is not normally required. However, Mr C noticed that the extension his neighbour was building was more than four metres high and asked the council to take action on this. The council measured the extension as being 4.1 metres high, but decided not to ask for a planning application to be submitted. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We found that the council were entitled to reach the decision that, although the extension exceeded the permitted development threshold by 0.1 metres and was a breach of planning control, they would not pursue the matter further by requiring the submission of a revised planning application. We took the view that the council had acted reasonably in the circumstances, and did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to provide appropriate responses to his complaints. We found, however, that they had provided reasonable responses to Mr C. Related reading View Decision Report 201305446 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was unhappy at the time the council took to deal with a complaint he had made about dry rot in his neighbour's property, which had affected his property. He said that it took almost a year for a serious environmental health issue to be addressed. We found that although the relevant legislation does not require councils to serve a work notice in these circumstances, the council intervened to help Mr C resolve the situation and did serve a notice. The legislation also states that if the owner does not comply with the notice within the time set out for it, the local authority can carry out the work itself and reclaim the cost from the owner. When the owner failed to comply with the notice, the council decided to carry out the work themselves and had explained to Mr C the difficulties they had encountered in trying to gain access to the property as well as later having to deal with a bank who, by then, owned the property. In total, the time between the work notice being issued and the specialist work starting on the property was seven months. In the circumstances we found this to be reasonable and did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201401023 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council did not address or adequately handle his complaints about antisocial behaviour and noise pollution involving neighbours who were council tenants. At the start of our investigation the council explained that although they had investigated Mr C's complaint, he had not made a formal complaint through their complaints handling procedure. We considered, however, that the council should have applied their complaints handling procedure in the first instance. In investigating Mr C's complaint about noise pollution, we found that the council had followed the relevant procedures and had dealt with this reasonably, and we did not uphold his complaint. The council's investigation found that the building predated the relevant building regulation and that there was an issue with sound insulation. Although there was no requirement to bring the sound insulation up to modern-day standards, the council agreed to do so, and to share the costs with Mr C. Various options were still being considered when Mr C brought his complaints to us. In relation to other antisocial behaviour that Mr C complained about, however, which included graffiti on his property, alleged illegal activity and accumulation of rubbish in the garden, we found that the council had not taken reasonable steps to address his concerns. We upheld his complaint, as we were not satisfied that the process for dealing with rubbish had been followed as, although a verbal warning had been given to his neighbour, there was no written warning as detailed in the council procedure. We also did not consider that they had explained their procedure on graffiti to Mr C or advised him to contact the police in relation to alleged criminal behaviour, although we did find that they had recommended he contact the police in relation to any breach of the peace that took place.

Mr C complained that the council had not notified him about a planning application for a neighbouring property. The adjoining property was being modified and Mr C explained that the first he knew of this was when building materials were delivered to his neighbour. Mr C was unhappy at not being notified as he said he would have objected to the application. Mr C complained to the council who acknowledged their error in not notifying him and apologised. Mr C also complained that his access rights (contained within his title deeds) had been restricted and that when the building work was done his property was damaged. Our investigation found that the planning application had been submitted around the time that the responsibility for neighbour notification had transferred from the applicant to the council. In addition to accepting their error, the council explained to us that, as a result of Mr C’s complaint, they had added two administrative steps to their process to prevent this from happening again. We upheld Mr C’s complaint that the council had failed to notify him, but in view of what the council had already done to improve their process, we did not make any recommendations. While we understood Mr C’s concerns, we were unable to interpret his title deeds for him or to recommend that the council address the issue of damage. Although they failed to notify Mr C of the application, they had not actually done the building work, and our role was restricted to investigating the lack of notification. Related reading View Decision Report 201300814 as a PDF (11.28 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably refused a tenancy succession request she made when her grandfather died. The council said that the property was not Mrs C's principal or only residence at the time of her grandfather's death and, therefore, she was not legally entitled to succeed the tenancy. The evidence we found during our investigation supported this and we did not find any fault in the way that the council arrived at their decision. We did find that the council took too long to deal with Mrs C's complaint, but as they had already changed their complaints procedure and were in the process of retraining staff, we did not make any recommendation about this. Related reading View Decision Report 201202385 as a PDF (10.98 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the way in which the council dealt with a request for approval of matters specified in the conditions of a planning permission. In particular, he said that the council had not informed members of the public about changes in planning guidance; had not given proper consideration to the objections he and his neighbours made; and failed to take account of access and turning arrangements in and to the site concerned. We investigated the complaint and took into account all the information provided by Mr C and by the council (including the complaints file, complaints procedure and relevant policies). We also obtained independent planning advice and made further inquiries of the council. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation confirmed that changes to the planning guidance concerned had taken place after a period of consultation, and met pre-agreed criteria. Although Mr C considered that further consultation should then have taken place, this was not a requirement of the planning legislation. Also, the documentation confirmed that the council had given due consideration to Mr C and his neighbours' representations but, still, decided to grant approval. They were also satisfied that the developer provided sufficient information to demonstrate that access onto and within the site was satisfactory. Although Mr C provided his own professional advice which demonstrated the contrary, this was not provided until after the application was decided. Related reading View Decision Report 201200472 as a PDF (11.39 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the way the council dealt with a retrospective planning application for work that she had carried out in her garden. In particular, she was concerned that the council alleged that trees had been felled without authorisation, destabilising the bank. She was concerned that these comments had affected her planning application and raised public feeling against her application. We found that the council had only noted one instance of unauthorised felling, the previous year, and had discussed this with Mrs C at the time, when she had agreed to replanting. We found that it was reasonable for them to mention this in the planning report and that information later passed to a councillor, which Mrs C had complained about, was also simply noting the landscape officer's observations. As we took the view that the council had reported the matter accurately, and as the landscape officer's observations were reasonable, we did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201100945 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C's son has a genetic condition, which means that he has very specific and challenging care needs. Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of their application for bathroom adaptations to meet his needs. The council agreed to fund adaptations to the bathroom, but Mr and Mrs C felt that these were lacking and did not take their son's needs into full account. The couple pursued a complaint through to the council's Complaints Review Committee (CRC). They complained that this process took too long. They also complained that the council did not use the relevant legislation as intended, with flexibility and discretion and that their decision regarding the bathroom had been made without proper consideration of their son's needs. On looking at this case, we found that the complaints and CRC process was completed in accordance with the timescales set out in the council's complaints procedure. We were also satisfied that the council showed flexibility and discretion in their consideration of the bathroom adaptations, as these went beyond the minimum requirements of the legislation and guidance. We found that the council showed awareness of Mr and Mrs C's son's specific needs and that their proposed bathroom adaptations supported the assessment carried out by their occupational therapist. Related reading View Decision Report 201101679 as a PDF (17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018