SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the lack of support from the council’s social work department following the death of their parent. C had sought help and support for them and their younger sibling (A). During the years that A was under the age of 16, C reached out numerous times. C said that they did not know whether or not they were capable of looking after A. C was not supported by the council during this time and A remained in C’s care. C was also not given appropriate information about seeking a kinship care order, which would have enabled them to access kinship care assistance. By the time the council offered advice, A had reached the age of 16 and was too old for a kinship order to be sought. As a result, C and A did not have any general support, or financial support during the time A was a child and in C’s care. The council did not acknowledge any failings and considered that they had acted appropriately. During our investigation, the advice we received indicated that the council should have considered A to potentially be an eligible child earlier than they did and did not help with legal costs which had a significant impact as A then became too old. This impacted C and A going forward as A did not have access to throughcare (i.e. support from social work into young adulthood as a care experienced person). During discussions, it was identified that an ex-gratia payment may be appropriate to resolve the case. After some consideration the council offered a payment of £8000. C felt that this was an acceptable amount and accepted the offer. Therefore, we discontinued our investigation and closed the complaint as resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 202106200 as a PDF (24.62 KB) Updated: May 22, 2024

C applied for free school transport for their child (A) when A was about to begin secondary school. The council rejected this application on the grounds that A did not live within the catchment area of the secondary school they had been enrolled in. A had been enrolled at the school automatically and had not obtained a place by placing request (a request that is made when you are not in the school catchment area). C considered that A should have been provided with free school transport because A had not obtained a place at the school by placing request, and therefore the policy on privilege transport (to those who lived out of catchment) should not apply. We found that the council's communication surrounding this issue could have been better. However, we considered that the policy on both free school transport and privilege transport had been reasonably applied. This was on the basis that regardless of how A came to be provided with a place at the school, the policy was clear regarding allocation of a transport place to those in a school catchment and those who were not. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202004443 as a PDF (24.27 KB) Updated: November 22, 2023

C complained about the council’s Community Care Assessment (CCA) of their young adult child's (A) care and support needs. The CCA recommended that A continue to work with Social Work to meet the family’s desired outcome of A working towards independent living and becoming less reliant on their parents. C complained that the CCA did not take into account all of the information that they had submitted for consideration. In particular, they were concerned that the CCA failed to take account of the family’s home situation and allow for periods of respite for both A and their parents. The council concluded that the CCA had taken account of, and referred to, all relevant information, including from other relevant council departments and outside organisations. The council were also of the view that the CCA had taken into consideration A’s outcomes, including time that would be neither spent by A at home nor with their parents. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the council’s decisions following the CCA regarding respite for A were reasonable, and that they reasonably took account of the family’s home situation. We found that the CCA was completed following the principles of the relevant legislation and reached a reasonable conclusion. We found nothing to suggest that the council failed to take account of relevant information, or minimised any potential risks to A or others. We did not uphold C’s complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202111356 as a PDF (24.48 KB) Updated: September 20, 2023

C complained on behalf of their late grandparent (A). A was admitted to hospital. The next month they were moved to an NHS continuing care bed in a care home. Shortly after, A's child and Power of Attorney (POA) received a call from a social worker to inform them that A would be transferred to a different care home the next day. C spoke to the social worker the same day and this was confirmed. The move was stated to have been due to the need to free up beds in light of the developing pandemic. C asserted that both they and A's POA were told that A would be moved to another NHS bed. Subsequently, A's family received a fee note from the new care home. C complained that A's move had been unreasonable and that A's family had not been informed of any potential costs. The council said that A's move was reasonable in light of a clear directive from the Scottish Government to free hospital beds. They said that the social worker had informed A's family that the move would be to a private nursing home. C complained to us. We took initial independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that the council's response regarding the move appeared reasonable, but that its response regarding fees was unreasonable. The adviser highlighted the information they would expect a family to be given prior to such a move. We opened an investigation into the case and notified the council of this decision. In response, the council changed their position. While it noted the circumstances of the developing pandemic, the council accepted that its communication with A's family had been inadequate. They proposed resolving the complaint by acknowledging their failure and by paying the care home fees. C accepted this resolution. As it was considered that there was no systemic learning to be found (due to specific nature of the failure) the complaint was closed on this basis. Related reading View Decision Report 202001347 as a PDF (24.69 KB) Updated: January 19, 2022

C’s sibling (A) was being treated in hospital after being diagnosed with a brain tumour. C complained about social work involvement in planning for A’s discharge from hospital. C believed the home environment was unsafe for A, and thought the council should have made alternative arrangements for A’s accommodation on discharge. C also complained about the communication with C and C’s sibling (B) regarding discharge arrangements for A. C was dissatisfied with the council’s complaint response, and brought their complaint to us. The council said that they had acted in accordance with the relevant legislation. They noted A consistently expressed a wish to be discharged home to their family, and the council undertook a number of tasks to improve the home condition prior to A’s discharge. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the council had provided an appropriate care and support plan for A. We noted C’s concerns about A’s home environment, but considered that the council had worked to minimise the risks to A of returning home. We considered that the council had met their obligations in respect of A and we, therefore, did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. With regard to the complaint about communication, the council acknowledged some of their communication with the family could have been better, and apologised for this. We noted that although C said they had Power of Attorney (a legal document appointing someone to act or make decisions for another person), this had not been registered with the Office of the Public Guardian and therefore gave them no authority to act on behalf of A. Although C and B had no legal authority to be involved in decision-making regarding A, we noted that the council had worked to involve them. We recognised this was a complex and difficult situation but we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201908612 as a PDF (24.64 KB) Updated: October 20, 2021

C is the owner of nurseries which provide childcare. During normal operation, C receives funding to provide an amount of childcare hours to parents without charge as these are funded by the Scottish Government. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the advice was for childcare providers to close their businesses unless they were providing critical childcare for keyworkers. C closed their businesses during this time. When arranging to reopen their business, C sought advice from the council on whether or not C can or should charge parents for critical childcare. The council told C that critical childcare should be free at the point of delivery and that C should not charge parents, however, they also advised that C could charge in certain circumstances. The council told C that they should use funding they received during the lockdown to cover costs when the nurseries reopened. C felt that the advice they received was in contradiction to advice that they received from the Scottish Government. C had previously raised a complaint with the council about funded hours (prior to the impact of the pandemic) and, in light of this, when C complained about the advice they were given, the council decided that the complaint should not be investigated via their complaints handling procedure. This office took an early view and asked the council to investigate the complaint and provide a further response. After a further response was issued, C remained dissatisfied and brought their complaint to us. We found that the advice given by the council was, at times, contradictory and did not appear to be in line with the guidance issued by the Scottish Government. We also found that the council did not appropriately investigate C's complaint at the time it was raised, or when this office asked them to undertake further work. In light of this, we upheld C's complaints.

Ms C complained that the Council had unreasonably failed to assess her needs as a carer. She said that she had suffered considerable stress for over a year as a result of her caring role for her son (Mr A) who has a number of disabilities. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council’s delay in completing a carers assessment was unreasonable. In addition, the report lacked any analysis of need and recommendations. It was clear that over this period Ms C was finding the situation extremely challenging and was under considerable stress. In view of these failings, we upheld this complaint. The council had accepted there was a delay in completing the carers assessment and had apologised for this. Ms C also complained that the council had failed to provide reasonable care to Mr A. In relation to this aspect of the complaint, we found that there were failings in relation to communication and a lack of evidence to show the reasoning around decision-making. We upheld this complaint.

Mrs C complained about the actions of the council. Her grandchild (Child A) had been placed in a kinship care arrangement with their maternal aunt (Mrs C's daughter) and uncle. Child A's father requested that he be allowed full-time care of the child. A number of assessment were undertaken by the council which resulted in a Safeguarder (someone appointed by a children's hearing to help them make the best decisions for a child or young person) being appointed to gather more information. The Safeguarder issued their report and recommended that Child A be returned to the full-time care of their father. As part of the Safeguarder's investigation, they interviewed a social worker involved in the case. In response to the Safeguarder's questions, the social worker highlighted some concerns about the kinship care placement and the involvement of Child A's maternal family. Mrs C states that she and her family were unaware of these concerns until the Safeguarder's report was issued. Mrs C complained that the council should have raised these concerns directly with the family to allow them to act on them. We took independent advice from a social worker. We concluded that, regardless of the council's general impression that the kinship carers and maternal family were providing good care, any concerns or issues should be discussed openly and transparently. We also raised concern about the council cancelling and then failing to rearrange appropriate reviews. We did not consider that the areas the social worker highlighted to the Safeguarder to be minor or insignificant. Therefore, regardless of where Child A's future place of residence would be, it would have been beneficial to discuss these matters openly with the kinship carers and maternal family at the time. This would have meant they could take steps to address any concerns and, if necessary, work with the council to ensure appropriate support was in place. We also recognised that the council's failure to schedule

C raised child protection concerns in respect of their child (A) with the emergency social work team. C was concerned about the contact A had with their other parent's partner. The council investigated C's concerns and advised that the nature of the allegations did not reach the threshold of significant harm and that they found no evidence that A was at risk of harm. C complained that the council did not follow their child protection procedures and that they failed to safeguard A. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the council made the appropriate enquiries, and carried out a risk assessment, to reasonably conclude that A was not at risk of harm. We concluded that there was no evidence that the council failed to appropriately respond to the child protection concerns raised. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201900883 as a PDF (24.12 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Land adjacent to C's property was used as the site compound during road construction carried out by contractors on behalf of the council. The compound was accessed by a temporary haul road which ran close to C's home. Construction vehicles used the road daily and vibration equipment was used to keep the road surface smooth. After cracks developed on the façade of C's property and some of their neighbours' properties, C complained to the council about structural damage they believed was caused by the works. They also complained that the council's Environmental Health Officer (EHO) failed to return calls when C had left voicemail messages asking them to come and measure noise, dust and vibration levels. C complained that a dilapidation survey should have been carried out by the council. We took independent advice from a planning specialist. We found that the road was constructed in accordance with the approved planning application. The council had taken appropriate action to address C's concerns over potential structural damage by conducting a survey of C's property (and neighbouring properties). We, therefore, did not uphold this complaint. In relation to whether the council took reasonable steps to investigate C's complaints of vibration, noise and pollution, we took independent advice from an environmental health specialist. We found that the EHO initially took appropriate action. They attended C's property and then contacted the contractor, advising them of the relevant procedure. They closed the complaint when C made no request for monitoring, giving C their number to contact should C change their mind. Although it was C's position that they had left a number of messages for the EHO, there was no available evidence to indicate that further complaints were raised with the EHO. We did find, however, that the council team responsible for delivery of the road construction project were aware of C's concerns about noise, dust and vibration and ought to have

C and their partner became kinship carers to their grandchild when the child's parent died. C complained that the social work department failed to provide the appropriate information and advice regarding kinship care payments. The council advised that C did not meet the criteria for kinship care assistance as set out in the Scottish Government's guidance. We found that the council had fulfilled their obligations. They had given the correct advice about C's eligibility for kinship care payments each time C was in contact with them. We found that the council had provided C with adequate information and support in respect of their grandchild's kinship care. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201903195 as a PDF (24.03 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably acted in contravention of the title deeds of his property, that they had unfairly discriminated against him and his family and that they had failed to investigate his complaints over six months. We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to resolve a boundary dispute between Mr C as a property owner and his neighbour, who was a council tenant. We could not determine whether the council had contravened the council deeds as this is not a matter we can consider. We found that council staff had not treated Mr C or his family unfairly, although we recognised that he and members of his family had found dealing with council staff distressing at times. We also found that the council had responded reasonably to Mr C's complaints with evidence they had followed their procedures correctly. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201805833 as a PDF (24.12 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Mr C complained that the council had handled a planning application inappropriately under the wrong section of planning legislation and failed to properly screen it to see if it required an environmental impact assessment (EIA). We found that the council had acknowledged that it had failed to handle the application properly, or to screen it for an EIA as required. We upheld both aspects of Mr C's complaint. However, we were not satisfied that the actions proposed by the council were sufficiently robust to prevent a reoccurrence, and so we made further recommendations in order to ensure the relevant learning was embedded within the council's planning procedures.

Mr C complained that the council did not reasonably respond to reports of bullying against his child (Child A). We found that the school had appropriately followed both their own, and the council's anti-bullying policy in approaching the issues raised by Mr C. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201804105 as a PDF (23.44 KB) Updated: October 23, 2019

Mrs C complained that the council failed unreasonably to respond to her complaint about flooding at her home and, that they failed to provide a reasonable emergency out-of-hours service. We found there to have been confusion with the councils complaints handlers on whether Mrs C's original contact was a request for service, and not a service complaint. Mrs C then asked for her complaint to be escalated to Stage 2, where she experienced several months delay awaiting a response. Only after this office's involvement did Mrs C receive an appropriate final letter. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, we found the council to have responded reasonably to Mrs C's request for an out-of-hours service, and they did so in line with the system they had in place at that time. There is no statutory requirement for the council to maintain a comprehensive out-of-hours service for customers with issues on the local roads network, and in the event of someone calling their out-of-hours number, they would be given other appropriate advice. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C complained to the council that flooding in his back garden was caused by drainage problems in the school grounds located to the rear of his back garden. The council's position was that the flooding was not their responsibility and may be caused by landscaping in Mr C's garden. The council said that the school contract requires the school area to be free of standing water after a number of hours following rainfall and that additional gully drainage was installed many years ago to assist with localised ponding. They said their investigation showed there was a gradual slope to the playground which water would run down away from Mr C's property. The council instructed an engineer to attend Mr C's home and visit the school site. A few weeks later a council officer and a contractor visited Mr C at home, and advised Mr C that their opinion was that the hard landscaping in his back garden was forming a basin which was likely to be the reason the rainfall was pooling in his garden. The council emailed Mr C to confirm that, given his concerns, their facilities management contractor had instructed work to be carried out to jet the drains in the school again. They later confirmed to our office that this work had not been carried out. Although we considered that the council had carried out reasonable investigations in order to assess Mr C's concerns, we were critical of the council for failing to carry out their commitment to jet the drains. We also noted discrepancies in the records of the facilities management contractor, which showed no evidence or record of ponding. This was at odds with the engineer's reports and confirmation supplied by Mr C, showing evidence of ponding. On the basis that the council offered to undertake works, which an appropriately qualified person instructed and put in writing to Mr C, but then did not carry out, we upheld this complaint. Mr C also complained that the council failed to handle his complaint reasonably. We found that the coun

Ms C's home is accessed along a single-track lane. Ms C complained that contractors' vehicles, involved in works on behalf of the council, obstructed the lane on a number of occasions. She complained that this was a contravention of the masterplan, in terms of which the lane must not be used by contractor vehicles. The council said that where access had been required via the lane, contractors had been advised to take due consideration of the residential surroundings, and to notify residents in advance where construction vehicle access was planned. They provided copies of email correspondence regarding the use of the lane, which evidenced that some efforts were being made to minimise disruption to residents. We found that although the council had made some efforts to address Ms C's concerns, there were still ongoing issues regarding the use of the lane. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Mr C complained about the manner in which the social work department communicated with him and his wife regarding the removal of their children from the family home. Mr C also complained the child protection investigation was inappropriate, the investigation was not thorough, and social work were over critical of how the parents disciplined their children. The council were of the view that they were working with the parents and that the placement of the children was on a voluntary basis. They said delays in holding a child protection case conference was due to a criminal investigation which was on-going into the matter. They advised that the children were placed appropriately following assessments of the children's grandparents and they had no concerns about the placement. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the council unreasonably failed to follow their procedures in relation to child protection concerns. We found that there was no evidence that a careful assessment was carried out in respect of the family friend that the children were initially placed with (and removed from shortly after) and therefore it was unclear how much confidence social work could have had that the parents would have cooperated with the measures. We found there was no evidence that appropriate paperwork had been completed. We did note that there was an appropriate assessment of the grandparents despite the fact that the children had not seen them in a number of years. However, we noted that the placement with the grandparents was treated as an emergency placement which would suggest that kinship care procedures should have been implemented but this was not done. In any case, there was no evidence of any looked after and accommodated child reviews being carried out, even if it had been. We considered that the reasons given for the delay in the child protection case conference were unreasonable as this could have been progressed regardless of any c

Mr C complained that the council failed to reasonably record and investigate concerns about bullying in line with their obligations. Mr C said that staff at his child's (Child A) primary school failed to apply their anti-bullying policy and guidelines, specifically that they failed to identify bullying behaviour. The council confirmed there was evidence of bullying behaviour. They advised each allegation of bullying was investigated and the head teacher fed back findings to Mr C. The council also outlined other steps they had taken to support Child A. The council acknowledged that not all incidents of bullying had been updated on their system. They apologised to Mr C for this and advised that this matter had been addressed with all head teacher's within the local area to ensure all allegations of bullying are formally recorded regardless of the outcome of the investigation. We found that the council's policy does not require the school to take specific actions. It requires them to take some action based on the individual circumstances of the incident(s). We considered that the school had been responsive to Mr C's concerns and explored a number of options available to them to address the bullying behaviours reported and support Child A. However, while the investigation by the school was reasonable, the recording of information was not. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint but did not make any recommendations due to the action already taken by the council. Related reading View Decision Report 201802160 as a PDF (24.01 KB) Updated: January 23, 2019

Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable steps in relation to his complaints about dust and noise from industrial premises near his home. We took independent advice from a consultant in environmental health. We found no evidence of a lack of willingness by the council to respond to Mr C's complaints of dust and noise, in line with the relevant legislation. We found that, on each occasion, the council determined there was insufficient evidence of a statutory nuisance. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Although we did not uphold the complaint, we did have concerns about the council's records of monitoring and the advisability of follow-up in relation to the council's recent investigations regarding dust and noise. We made a recommendation and provided feedback to the council to address these points.

Mr and Mrs C complained that primary school staff failed to follow procedures in relation to their reports of their child being bullied, and about the council's handling of their complaint. We found that council policy required that if a bullying incident was reported, it should be investigated to establish whether bullying had occurred, and that school management would monitor and keep records of incidents from all classes, identifying possible patterns of behaviour. Class teachers would follow- up any complaint by a parent and report back promptly and fully on the action taken; investigate an incident if bullying was suspected or reported, with the incident being dealt with immediately by the teacher approached; and monitor and record conflicts on pastoral notes and advise the Senior Management Team of this. We were not provided with any records that investigations took place, in response to Mr and Mrs C's contact, to establish whether bullying had occurred. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Mr and Mrs C submitted a detailed complaint to the council. In our view, the council should have dealt with it at the investigation stage of the complaints handling procedure, rather than trying to deal with it at the frontline resolution stage. After this, the council carried out an investigation outside the complaints handling procedure and, after this, a second investigation as part of the complaints handling procedure. We found that the council's responses to Mr and Mrs C, in particular after the first investigation, did not deal with the complaints they had raised, or provide reasonable responses to key points. We upheld this part of the complaint.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably delayed in repairing the door entry system at his block of flats following a fire at his property. Mr C is on the council's housing list and he believes that the council are not following their housing allocation policy correctly. He complained that they failed to provide him with a clear explanation of their housing allocations policy. Mr C also complained the council did not take appropriate action in line with their policies to address his concerns about anti-social behaviour at his property. Our investigation found that the council did progress the repairs to the door entry system where possible. However the delay was due to other residents not allowing the council access to their properties. It is our view the council did not unreasonably delay in repairing the door entry system. We found the complaints about anti-social behaviour related to Mr C's previous tenancy. The council's policy also states that if the complaints about anti-social behaviour relate to a disturbance, then the correct procedure is for the complainant to report this to the police. We also found the council's explanation of their housing allocation policy was correct and that they had applied it correctly. We found no fault or failing in the council's actions therefore we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201608805 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his son was not receiving his entitlement of 600 hours a year of free nursery provision and that the council's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. We found that the council had followed their policy correctly and that, although there was a small shortfall in the hours provided, they had made efforts to offer additional hours to make up the shortfall. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We found that there were some aspects of the complaints handling that could have been better, and we have drawn this to the council's attention. However, overall we considered that their complaints handling was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201604392 as a PDF (10.89 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council as he felt that they had failed to appropriately investigate reports of anti-social behaviour he and his wife had made about their previous neighbour. He claimed that the council had failed to liaise with Police Scotland over charges brought against the neighbour and that this had led to them failing to take appropriate action against her. However, on investigation we found that the council had followed their procedure for investigating anti-social behaviour. This included liaising with the police and confirming the charges in question, which led them to take appropriate and proportionate action in response. We did not uphold this part of the complaint. Mr C was also unhappy that the council had provided inaccurate information regarding their allocations policy after he completed a mutual exchange into a new property. He explained that the council had told him that he would not be eligible for a three bedroom property despite having two children of the opposite sex, as they were both under ten years old. However, in the council's recent responses to his complaints, they apologised for providing this information and clarified that, although the law states that a child over ten would be considered overcrowded if sharing a room with a sibling of the opposite sex, the council's policy was more generous, and lowered this threshold to eight. Mr C remained dissatisfied about this, as it had led him to wait two years living in overcrowded conditions until his eldest child's tenth birthday before submitting a housing application. He felt that his housing application should be backdated two years as a result. We upheld this complaint and agreed that backdating of the application would be a reasonable resolution in the circumstances. Finally, Mr C wished to complain about the council's handling of his complaints as he felt there had been delays. However, on investigation we found that the council had taken sufficient steps to keep Mr

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his constituent (Mrs A) about planning applications at a site neighbouring her property. In particular, Mrs A was concerned that the council had failed to take enforcement action when planning conditions were not met in relation to engineering works and that the council had failed to issue a stop notice requiring activity on the planning site to stop when work began before planning permission had been granted. Mrs A also complained that the council had failed to take reasonable account of her concerns about the development. We took independent planning advice and found no evidence that when the alleged breach of planning control was brought to the council's attention, they failed to investigate the matter in line with the Scottish Government's planning enforcement charter or the council's planning enforcement charter. We also found no evidence of fault by the council when arriving at the decision not to issue a stop notice. We were satisfied that the council, in considering the application for the erection of houses on the neighbouring site, properly took into account the relevant guidance and planning policies. We found no evidence of procedural omissions by the council in the handling of the planning application. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508338 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018