SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to carry out an adequate assessment of their parent (A)'s personal care needs and made an unreasonable decision that A did not meet the criteria for free personal care funding. We found that the council's records did not evidence that thorough assessments of A's needs were carried out. There was no evidence that A's needs had changed, or that they no longer met the criteria for free personal care funding when the funding stopped. Although there was some evidence that A's needs were considered when the decision to stop funding was challenged, there was no evidence of an adequate assessment. Therefore we upheld C's complaint.

C complained about an incident in which their late parent (A) fell from their wheelchair prior to being assisted into bed by two home carers employed by the council. Following the fall, the carers assisted A from the floor and proceeded with the transfer into bed. However, A was later taken to hospital where it was discovered they had sustained a fractured femur as a result of the fall. C considered that the fall had been caused by the carers’ failure to check A was safely secured in the wheelchair by failing to ensure A’s lap belt was fastened, the footrests were in the correct position and a glide and lock sheet was in place. C also complained that the carers had failed to obtain medical assistance following the fall despite A being in pain. The council’s position was that A had been safely secured in their wheelchair and the fall had occurred when the carers were preparing to move A with the use of a hoist, at which point it was discovered that a lock and glide sheet had not been inserted into A’s wheelchair. The council also stated that the carers had proceeded to move A into bed after checking whether A had suffered any injury and required medical assistance, which A had declined. We took independent advice from an occupational therapy adviser. We found that it was not possible to say how A’s fall had occurred given the differing versions of events. We noted that, based on A’s risk assessments, A had not required the use of a lock and glide sheet and that the carers would not have been responsible for ensuring it had been placed into A’s wheelchair. In any case, this may not have prevented the fall from occurring. Additionally, we noted that lap belts were not considered a measure of restraint and it was normal practice for this to be removed by carers when attending to a service user, unless otherwise specified. We also considered that it had been appropriate for the carers to have moved A after the fall given the evidence suggested that they had checked wheth

C complained on behalf of their family member (A). C was unhappy with the way the council’s social work service conducted a review of A’s care package. The outcome of the council’s review was that the weekly number of hours for an element of A’s support was reduced. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that there was a lack of rationale within the assessment and care review documentation for the reduction in A’s support. In view of this, we concluded that the review of A’s care package was not conducted reasonably. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. C also raised concerns about the way the council investigated and responded to their complaint. We did not identify any failings in the council’s complaint handling. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C adopted a young child, however the placement ended after a short period of time and the child was removed from C's care. C complained to the council about the lack of support provided during the adoption placement, that the placement ended abruptly and that the council did not follow all of the recommendations in the disruption report completed after the ending of the placement. The council advised that support was offered to C, however they recognised that an additional meeting to review the situation and offer practical support may have been helpful. The council also acknowledged the placement ended abruptly but considered it was managed well. The council said they implemented the recommendations detailed in the disruption report. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council failed to recognise the need to formally review the child's plan and respond to C's requests for support. We found that the council failed to ensure the placement ended in a more planned way or to recognise that more weight should have been given to a child's experience of significant trauma. We also found that the council unreasonably delayed in responding to C's complaint. We upheld C's complaints.

C and B complained about the council's communication with them when they were arranging a placement for their child (A) at an independent school. A has additional support needs and the placement was arranged and funded by the council at C and B's request. C and B later became aware that the council had previously raised concerns about the school when they managed to obtain information through a Freedom of Information request. C and B had raised several concerns about A's placement. They complained that the council were aware there were problems with the school before placing A there. As such, they felt the council should have shared these concerns with them so they could have made an informed choice about whether A should have been placed at the school. C and B were also dissatisfied with the council's response to their complaint and how the complaint was handled. We found that it was not clear that the concerns raised by the council directly contributed, or were replicated in, the difficulties described by C and B in their complaint. However, in our view, it was reasonable to conclude that the concerns raised could have impacted A or the placement. We took into account the nature of the concerns the council raised about the school, the previous difficulties in sustaining an appropriate placement for A, and the challenging nature of the placement. After considering these factors, we concluded that it would have been reasonable for the council to share their concerns about the school in some form with C and B at the outset of the process. Therefore, we upheld this complaint. In relation to complaint handling, we found failings in respect of timescales, communication and how the council addressed information provided by C and B. We concluded that the complaint handling aspect of the stage 2 investigation was not of a reasonable standard. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Ms C complained about the service provided by the council after her property sustained water ingress from a nearby mains water pipe. The pipe was located under a council owned footpath and fed a nearby property. Scottish Water was unable to assist in the circumstances and so the council undertook to investigate the leak. Subsequently, a contractor appointed by the council excavated the footpath and fixed the leaking pipe. Initially, the water ingress into Ms C's property ceased. However, a short time later Ms C contacted the council to advise of a reoccurrence of the water ingress. The council did not accept Ms C's position that the work carried out by their contractor had caused the further ingress and decided not to undertake further work on the pipe. Ms C was unhappy with the way the council had dealt with the leaking pipe. We found no evidence that these repairs were inspected by the council prior to or at completion to ensure that they were carried out to a satisfactory standard. We concluded that there was a lack of appropriate oversight over the works and we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also had concerns about the way the council handled her correspondence and complaints. The council acknowledged to Ms C that they had not responded to a number of her letters, yet we found that they did not adequately establish the reasons as to why this happened. While other aspects of the council's complaint handling were satisfactory, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow relevant procedures after an incident occurred at her child's (Child A) school. Mrs C was concerned that an ambulance and the police were not called immediately after the incident, and that appropriate support was not in place for Child A's return to school. We found that it was a discretionary decision for the council on whether to call the emergency services based on their assessment of the situation at the time. We did not find evidence of an administrative or procedural failure on the part of the council which would lead us to question their decisions. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201805871 as a PDF (23.63 KB) Updated: August 21, 2019

Mr C was admitted to hospital following a stroke. In order to prepare for his discharge, the council arranged for a homecare service to be put in place. Due to his level of personal savings, Mr C was advised that he would be required to pay the full amount of his care. Mr C complained to the council that he was given the incorrect information in relation to his care costs and that the council unreasonably invoiced him for a larger amount of care costs than he was previously advised. The council acknowledged they provided Mr C with the wrong information about the cost of his care package on a number of occasions, and they apologised for this. However, as Mr C signed a document to indicate he understood he would be required to pay the full cost of his care, the council considered he should still be liable to pay the full cost of his care. We took independent social work advice. It is not disputed that Mr C was required to pay the full cost of his care; however, we considered whether it was reasonable that the council insisted Mr C should pay the full charge. Our investigation found that the council failed to provide Mr C with clear written information about what his care costs would be from the outset. Mr C was wrongly informed that his weekly care charge was his monthly care charge. We also considered it was unreasonable that the council took almost eight months to resolve the issue and inform Mr C of his correct weekly charge. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mrs C was granted planning permission to create an extension to her home for her father (Mr A) after he was diagnosed with Alzheimers disease. Mr A sold his own house and the money raised was transferred to Mrs C to fund the extension works. Mr A's illness later worsened and he experienced an emergency detention in hospital and was later discharged to a care home. The council said that the value of the capital from the sale of Mr A's house should be treated as notional capital in his financial assessment which meant that he was to be regarded as self funding for his care home accommodation. Mrs C disputed the decision but the council's original decision was upheld. Mrs C complained that not all relevant facts had been taken into account by the council and as a result Mr A was considered to have deliberately deprived himself of capital. She also complained that the council had not provided her with a clear reasoned explanation of their decision in terms of the Scottish Government Charging for Residential Accommodation Guidance (CRAG). It is not within our power to review the decision or overturn it. We can only look to see whether the decision taken was on reasonable grounds, taking all the relevant facts into account, in line with relevant guidance. We found that the council had considered all the information Mrs C provided, made reference to CRAG and obtained legal advice. We found no evidence of failures in the council's decision making and, therefore, did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. However, we did find that the council had not provided a reasonable explanation to Mrs C for how they reached their decision. We upheld this aspect of her complaint.

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's handling of a planning application. In particular that they failed to ensure a public consultation was carried out to a certain standard, they failed to describe the development appropriately, there was a flaw in a report, they had breached a condition of planning permission and that they failed to act when notified of wilful destruction of wildlife. Mr C also complained that the council inaccurately described their internal complaints procedure as independent. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. In all instances, we considered that the council had acted reasonably and appropriately. We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. However, we did note that in reference to the public consultation, there were inconsistencies in the terminology used to describe the proposed development and the pre-application advert could have been clearer. We made a recommendation to the council in light of this finding.

Mrs C complained about the council's policy on kinship care allowances. She and her husband are kinship carers for their granddaughter and previously obtained a residency order. The council pays approved/formal kinship carers the same additional four week holiday allowance that is paid to foster carers. However, they do not pay this to previously approved/informal kinship carers, which is the category that Mrs C falls into. Mrs C feels that a council committee report proves that she should be paid the four week allowance, as it states that approved/informal kinship carers should not be disadvantaged by obtaining a residence order (now known as a kinship care order). We made a number of enquiries to both the council and the Scottish Government. Although we were not satisfied by the council's initial response, they eventually provided a more robust justification for why they reached their decision within the existing legal framework. The Scottish Government also provided a far clearer explanation of their intentions than was contained in the letter detailing the funding agreement which led to the changes to kinship care allowances. They stated that the funding agreement only applied to regular weekly allowances and was intended to bring allowances for eligible kinship carers in line with foster carers. Therefore, local authorities had discretion to make additional payments as they saw fit. In addition to this, we saw no evidence to support the statement in the council's committee report which stated that kinship carers should not be disadvantaged by obtaining a residence or kinship care order. On this basis, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. However, we did provide feedback to the Scottish Government as they are currently carrying out a national review into kinship and foster care payment arrangements. Related reading View Decision Report 201705014 as a PDF (11.44 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C complained that the council failed to deal with complaints she had made about her child's school in line with their obligations. She said that the council had not investigated her concerns correctly, that they had responded to her complaint outwith the timescale of 20 working days and that they had not implemented any changes as a result of failings they had identified. We found that the council had delayed in commencing their investigations and that, whilst it was reasonable that the investigations took more than 20 working days, it was unreasonable that the council failed to keep Mrs C updated on their progress or seek to agree reasonable timeframes by which they would provide their response. In addition, the council's complaints response was overly complex, hard to understand and failed to clearly state the elements of the complaint they had upheld, and what actions were identified to address the failings. We also considered that the council had failed to provide clear explanations of the actions they had taken with respect to certain failings identified. We upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mr C raised concerns about the council's handling of a Section 75 Agreement contained in a planning approval for a residential agreement. A Section 75 Agreement of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 enables land owners to enter into a legal agreement with the planning authority to restrict or regulate the development or use of land. In this case, the Section 75 Agreement related to a replacement football pitch. Mr C complained that the council had failed to take enforcement action in respect of the planning approval in relation to the condition of the replacement football pitch. We took independent planning advice. The advice we received was that the council had failed to give adequate consideration to the policy provisions of the National Planning Policy Guideline 11: Sports, Physical Recreation and Open Space (NPPG 11), which was in place at the time of the application. The relevant guidance is now the Scottish Planning Policy 2014. We found that the council, as planning authority, had no capacity to take enforcement action in this case, as what had been built met the terms of the Section 75 Agreement. However, we found that the council had unreasonably failed to make provision through the Section 75 Agreement that a specification for the replacement pitch be agreed in writing before construction began to ensure that the replacement pitch met the full terms of the NPPG 11. As such, the replacement pitch was not suitable in terms of accessibility, amenity and community benefit. While we identified shortcomings in the handling of the planning application in relation to the report of handling, consultation and the adequacy of the Section 75 Agreement, given that the council had no capacity to take enforcement action we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about enforcement action. Mr C also raised concerns about the handling of his complaint. We found that the council's handling of his complaint was reasonable, and we did not uphold the complaint

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning process. Mr C said that the owner of the site in question is now using the site for a purpose that was not part of their original planning application. Mr C said that a change of use planning application should have been made, and that the permission granted does not cover the activities currently being carried out at the site. In addition to this, Mr C felt that a transport assessment should have been carried out, due to the size of the site. We reviewed the relevant information and took independent advice from a planning adviser. We concluded that there was no requirement that the council explicitly state that a change of use had been applied for. We also concluded that the council had considered the original application as a change of use application, and that the subsequent approval permits the activities currently being carried out at the site. In respect of the transport assessment, we were satisfied that the guidance states that the size criteria is indicative, and not an automatic trigger for an assessment to be carried out. Although we found that the council's report of handling could have been more detailed on this matter, we considered the council's subsequent explanations for why they did not carry out a transport assessment to be acceptable. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201702796 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained about the licensing arrangements for licensed premises adjacent to their property. They requested a Licensed Premises Review hearing as they felt that the level of late night noise coming from the premises contravened a condition of the premises license. This review was considered by the licensing board. Mr and Mrs C complained about the actions of the licensing standards officer and the clerk to the licensing board prior to a licensing board meeting to consider the review. This meeting related to changes to the operation of the premises. We found that the council were unable to provide documentation to evidence that the administrative process of approval for these changes of operation had been followed. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Mr and Mrs C also complained about the Licensing Premises Review hearing and the information that had been considered during the review hearing. We found that Mr and Mrs C had been represented at the hearing and found no evidence that council officers had acted unreasonably in relation to the information presented to the review hearing. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C complained about the council's management of a multi-use games area (MUGA) near her home. When the council provided Ms C with their formal response they said that they were unable to reach a conclusion on whether she and her neighbours were affected by anti-social behaviour from users of the games area. They also promised some specific actions as a result of their investigations. Ms C complained to us that a council employee had given details of her complaint to other members of the public. She also complained that the council's decision that they were unable to reach a conclusion about anti-social behaviour was unreasonable and that, almost a year after their response, the council had not undertaken the promised actions. We found that there was no clear evidence that the council employee had given details about the complaint to members of the public and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In response to our enquiries on their decision about anti-social behaviour, the council told us that there had been no indication of significant anti-social behaviour. We therefore concluded that it had been possible for them to reach a conclusion on that element of Ms C's complaints and we upheld her complaint about this. We found that, in their complaint response, the council had said they would engage a specialist acoustic counsultant to undertake a further noise assessment and look into possible solutions to the noise. They also said that they would arrange for ball catch netting to be installed at the MUGA. We found that they had not fulfilled these actions. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C, who is an MSP, complained on behalf of her constituent (Mrs B) about the decision made by Mrs B's daughter (Miss A)'s school to exclude Miss A from attending an overseas trip. Miss A has a condition which is a disability under the Equalities Act 2010. The school understood Miss A's health to be particularly poor and had concerns about safely managing her condition during the trip. The school carried out an additional risk assessment and sought advice from the council, who advised that a parent or guardian should accompany Miss A, otherwise she should be excluded for safety reasons. Ultimately, a parent or guardian could not attend, and Miss A did not go on the trip. Ms C complained that the school failed to take all relevant information into account when they decided to remove Miss A from the trip. Ms C also raised concerns about how the school communicated the decision to exclude Miss A to Mrs B and Miss A. We found that, due to their concerns about her health, it was reasonable that the school carried out an additional risk assessment about Miss A's attendance on the trip. However, we found that the school should have given Mrs B a timescale to provide medical documents, which they did not. We also found that, during the decision making process, the school should have discussed Miss A's health and the support she may need during the trip with her. We also considered that the decision to remove Miss A from the trip should have been communicated to her directly by the school, and it was not. We therefore upheld these two aspects of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also complained that the council did not take their responsibilities under the Equalities Act 2010 into account in their handling of the matter. We took independent advice from an equalities adviser. The adviser considered that the school had made a reasonable adjustment by organising medical training for staff attending the trip. However, we found that this should have been organised at an earlie

Planning permission was sought for development of an area bordering Mr C's property. Mr C felt that the council's report of handling for this application should have made reference to a section 75 agreement (a contract that is entered into between a landowner and a planning authority) that had been reached in relation to another application that had previously been submitted for a separate, nearby area. Mr C felt that the section 75 agreement relating to the other application should have been mentioned in the report of handling for the new application for planning permission as the two applications were similar. Mr C also felt that the council's report of handling did not accurately detail the requirements of the council's policy regarding the collection of domestic waste. Mr C also raised concerns that the council's responses to his enquiries and complaints had not been reasonable. Mr C felt that the council's responses were not provided within a reasonable timescale, relied upon events that had not occurred at the time of the consideration of the application and had contained an error that was retracted when he had queried it. We took independent advice from a planning adviser and found that it was reasonable that there was no reference to the section 75 agreement in the report of handling as this agreement was not transferable to the new application for planning permission. We found that the council was not obligated to provide the exhaustive detail of the waste policy that Mr C felt should have been included in their report. We also found that the council's responses had been given within the published timescales, had not relied upon future events and had been reasonable in accepting that an error, which did not affect the council's conclusions, had been made. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201606473 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to the council about their failure to respond to her requests for repairs and concerns about dampness in her home. She also complained that the council failed to carry out appropriate repairs to her garden fence. In response to Ms C's reports of damp, the council investigated the damp and carried out a number of repairs, however, the problem persisted. It was later discovered that the leak causing the damp was coming from a boiler pipe and this was repaired. The council assessed the repair to the fence as a low priority and only carried out small repairs until the full repair could be completed. Ms C was experiencing complaints from her neighbour as her dog was entering his garden through the fence. She believed that if the council had repaired the fence sooner she would not have had such a difficult relationship with her neighbour. Ms C was unsatisfied with the service she had received from the council, and brought her complaints to us. Our investigation found that the council responded to Ms C's request for repairs within the specified timescale, as per their policy. We found the council took the appropriate steps to investigate the source of the leak and damp, and repaired it without delay. Our investigation also found that the council assessed the repair to the fence as low priority and reminded Ms C of her responsibilities as a dog owner to prevent her dog from entering her neighbour's garden, which in our view was reasonable. We found no evidence that the council failed to carry out the repairs. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201608769 as a PDF (11.28 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The council opened a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA), very close to Mr C's home. Mr C complained to the council about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour occurring at and around the MUGA. Mr C was unhappy with the response of the council and that the facility was being operated without any management plan when this had been a condition of the planning application. Mr C complained to the council about their response. The council accepted that there was a valid complaint about noise nuisance and that they had failed to implement the management plan, but did not accept that this had had an adverse impact on Mr C as he had described to them. The council made recommendations but did not apologise for the failings or take steps to remedy the problems. Mr C was dissatisfied with the response and complained to us about the council's failure to properly manage the MUGA and their response to his concerns. We investigated and concluded that the council had failed to fulfil the planning conditions with respect to reducing possible noise nuisance through landscaping and use of noise dampening materials and in failing to implement a management plan. We also concluded that the council's complaint investigation was flawed in its scope and the responses lacked the required empathy and commitment to remedial action. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to respond to his concerns of dampness, water leaks and mould, in line with their procedures. He also complained that they failed to respond reasonably after he reported problems with his boiler, and that customer service staff responded unreasonably when he phoned them to report his concerns. We found that the council did not meet the requirements of their Responsive Repairs Policy in relation to the first two aspects of Mr C's complaint, and we upheld these. We were, however, satisfied that the council acted in line with their customer service standards and complaints procedure in relation to the third aspect of his complaint, and we did not uphold this part.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a complaints review committee (CRC), in relation to care arrangements for his elderly mother after she was discharged from hospital. Mr C complained that the CRC was unreasonably delayed, and that the council did not take steps to remedy failings identified by the CRC. In addition, Mr C was unhappy with the council's consideration, at a different CRC, of his concerns about an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA). We found that the council failed to make arrangements for a CRC as soon as Mr C told them he wanted to progress his complaint to that stage. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that delays after this point were largely due to Mr C engaging in protracted correspondence with the council, and due to Mr C's choice not to proceed to a CRC for a period of time, but to approach us instead without having been to a CRC. We found that the council did take steps to remedy failings identified by the CRC, so we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint. However, one matter identified by the CRC was not addressed, and we have made a recommendation to remedy this specific issue. We noted that Mr C disagreed with the council's view about when an EQIA should take place. He wanted an EQIA of contracts and polices within the council, in particular relating to new contracts for dementia care. The council's view was that, as no new policies had been introduced, an EQIA was not necessary. We found that the council considered Mr C's concerns and gave a view based on their reading of their obligations in relation to an EQIA. The council then explained why they did not consider an EQIA to be necessary. In the circumstances, we could not conclude that the council's consideration of Mr C's concerns was unreasonable, and we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of the planning application for a music festival. In particular, he complained that the council unreasonably granted the developer permission to use a particular junction as the access route for the building and break-up of the event. He further complained that the council had failed to carry out adequate environmental monitoring at this junction. Mr C was also concerned that the council agreed to extend working hours and that they failed to take enforcement action when the developer failed to adhere to the amended hours. Finally, Mr C was unhappy that the council did not attach a planning condition to the planning consent that residents affected by any disruption should be compensated by the developer. We took independent planning advice. We were satisfied that the council followed planning procedure in determining the planning application in accordance with the terms of the relevant legislation. The advice we received was that, while the council accepted that there was some disturbance to local residents, the planning conditions imposed were aimed at safeguarding the amenity, health and safety of neighbouring residents. As such, we did not uphold the complaint that the council unreasonably granted the developer permission to use the junction. We also found that there was no requirement on the council, as planning authority, to carry out environmental monitoring. We found that conditions had been placed on the planning consent aimed at ensuring that the amenity, health and safety of residents was safeguarded and that disturbance was minimised. We did not uphold the complaint that the council failed to undertake environmental monitoring. In relation to Mr C's concern that the working hours were extended, we found that the planning condition had allowed for a change in the hours of operation. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We were also satisfied that when the alleged breach of amended hours was b

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to refer a decision on a planning application to the planning committee, and that the council's handling of his complaint about this matter had been unreasonable because it was responded to by the officers who had handled the application. Mr C believed the application should have been referred to the planning committee because a previous application, which he considered was similar, had been determined by the planning committee. The council advised that the previous application had been for the removal of a planning condition for a group of buildings, while the application Mr C complained about had been for a change of use of some of that group of buildings, and that they considered that the applications were significantly different. We took independent advice from a planning adviser who reached the same conclusion, and also noted that documents submitted with the later application specifically pointed out that there were differences between it and the earlier application. We accepted the adviser's view and did not uphold this complaint. We also found that the council had appropriately investigated the complaint and there had been no undue influence by the staff who had originally handled the applications. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the council's handling of his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201605355 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that a housing officer unreasonably approached him in the street and accused him of causing nuisance. Mr C said he had previously told the council about a health issue, and had asked them to notify him in advance of any visit. We found that Mr C had told the council about a disability, and had asked them to alert him in advance of any visit. The council said the officer who approached Mr C did not know who he was when they approached Mr C. We could not prove by means of the evidence available exactly what the officer who approached Mr C knew about the situation. We found that the officer was entitled to ask the kind of questions they put to Mr C. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted the officer could have been better informed and prepared in advance of the visit. Mr C also complained that the council failed to follow the correct procedures when investigating the matter. We found that the council had in the main done what would be expected in similar situations. However, the council's tenancy management procedures were not followed, as no case closure letter had been sent. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.