SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that the council approved an application for non-material variation (NMV) to a planning consent, despite the variation significantly altering the originally agreed plot levels and having major effects on existing properties that bordered onto the new development. We took independent planning advice, which highlighted that it is it is ultimately a matter for the planning authority to determine whether or not a proposed change to a planning application is material. However, there should be clear and transparent records to support the council’s decision making and justify their decision. The council accepted that was lacking in this case, in terms of the content of the worksheet for the NMV. We found that the NMV worksheet did not contain sufficient information to explain why the council concluded that the change was non-material. The records did not adequately demonstrate that the council considered the potential impact on neighbouring properties, and continued compliance with the relevant Development Plan in this regard. It was not demonstrated e.g. via adequate / relevant cross sections through the site, how the council concluded that there was sufficient separation distances between new and existing properties. It would also have been good practice for the council to keep a record of any site visit carried out, recognising that there is no statutory requirement to visit the site. While we found that the council failed to keep adequate records to justify their decision, it was not possible for us to determine that the decision to approve the changes as a NMV was incorrect. That remained a discretionary matter for the council. However, on the basis of poor record keeping, we concluded that the council’s handling of the NMV application was unreasonable, and we upheld this complaint.

C complained on behalf of their client (A), who has looked after their grandchildren since the sudden death of the children's parent (B) but never received kinship care allowance. A kinship care assessment commenced and the outcome was that A was not suitable to be approved as kinship carer. However, a Children's Hearing panel decided that both children should remain in the care of A (contrary to the recommendation of social work). A couple of years later the children's other parent (D) died (and it was stated by C that D would not have been able to look after the children prior to that). After this, C states a regular payment was given to A, albeit less than the kinship care rate. C states that the children had previously had a social worker involved and A had worked with social work regarding the care of the children, and that they had asked A to look after them following their parents (B) death. C considered that A was eligible for an allowance because the children are 'looked after' as they were cared for under a Section 25 arrangement Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and then a Compulsory Supervision Order. C refers to Regulations 36, 38 & 39 in The Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009. C was concerned about the length of time taken to commence a kinship care assessment and that this was not commenced at the point that the council asked C to look after the children. The council stated that there is a new kinship care assessment in progress. Related reading View Decision Report 202203947 as a PDF (24.5 KB) Updated: June 21, 2023

C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. C's neighbour was granted planning consent for an outbuilding in their garden. C noted that this space was to be used for commercial activities and complained that the council failed to comply with their own adopted and emerging Local Development Plan policies when reaching the decision to approve the application. C did not consider that their concerns in this regard had been addressed in the report of handling. C raised further concerns as to how the approved development would impact the neighbouring properties and the local area. C contended that the council failed to appropriately notify all of the affected neighbours. When objecting to the development, and in their subsequent complaint to the council, C noted that approving the application would allow the developer, or future owners of the residential property, to conduct other activities that could be disruptive. C did not consider that the council had taken adequate steps to consider this eventuality, or to limit the activities to those listed by the applicant. C raised a complaint with the council, but did not feel that all of their concerns were addressed. We took independent advice from a planning specialist. We found that the council were largely able to demonstrate that the planning application had been handled reasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. However, the report of handling failed to address C's concerns about the potential for other activities taking place at the site in the future. Whilst we were satisfied that the council were entitled to reach the decision that they had, we were critical of them for failing to demonstrate that this issue had been considered prior to consent being granted and we made a recommendation in this regard. We also found that the council failed to address this, and another issue, in their responses to C's complaint. This was particularly concerning given how central these t

C complained about the planning procedure followed by the council for a planning application to build a dwelling house and garage on the site of a post office in C's street. C raised a number of concerns, including that the garage drawings were not published on the council's planning portal for comment, that the correct garage floor area was not shown on the block plan and that the planning officer approved a garage of 51 square metres and then allowed a garage to be built which was clearly larger than this. We took independent advice on the complaint from a planning adviser. The council acknowledged to C and this office that they failed to upload all relevant information on this planning application to their planning portal, including the detailed garage drawings. However, they failed to apologise to C for this failing and explain what action they had taken to prevent this type of failing from happening again. We noted that the system upgrade the council advised they were now installing to prevent errors in manual uploading was reasonable and we asked the council for evidence of the completed implementation and confirmation of its scope. We noted that the block plan did not show the garage floor area and it was not specifically required to do so. However, they said that the garage floor area in the block plan appeared to be considerably smaller than the garage shown in the approved garage plans and elevations and it would have been good practice for the council to have ensured that all plans were consistent. We noted that although the planning report referred to the garage as being 51 square metres, the stamped plans were what was ultimately approved and what an applicant could then implement and they showed the garage as being 77.8 square metres. The council have said that the reference to a 51 square metre garage was based on a miscalculation by the planning officer and remedial action had been taken to address this. We were concerned that the planning repo

C held Power of Attorney (POA, a legal document appointing someone to act or make decisions for another person) for their parent (A) who moved to a care home. Due to their level of capital, it was determined that A would be self-funding their accommodation. C requested a reassessment for funding towards care home fees as A’s savings had reduced to the required threshold. C provided the evidence required to show A’s income and expenditure to social work and was informed that A had been overspending on items other than care costs. The council determined that there had been deprivation of capital (where someone has spent or otherwise reduced their capital at least in part to avoid paying that money towards care home fees). This meant they would not contribute towards A’s care costs. By the time C was informed of this, A’s finances reduced significantly and had accrued debt. C complained to us that the council’s view that A had deprived themselves of capital was unreasonable and also that the council had failed to provide adequate information about reasonable spending and deprivation of capital. We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified social worker. On reviewing the council’s records, we considered a reasonable approach had been taken to the financial assessment and that the conclusion reached was reasonable, as there was clear evidence that A’s spending had not been consistent with their spending in previous years. We also considered that reasonable information had been provided about deprivation of capital and made clear that it was the responsibility of a POA to understand A’s financial obligations and that the council did not have responsibility to provide financial advice. As such, we did not uphold C’s complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201905325 as a PDF (24.6 KB) Updated: October 20, 2021

C became a kinship carer to their family member (A) and complained that the council had failed to provide appropriate and accurate information about kinship care payments and had dissuaded C from applying. C also complained that information about the council’s policy on kinship care assistance was difficult to find and the policy provided to them in 2019 was out of date and did not include reference to changes in legislation that took place in 2009 and 2015. The council said that C was provided with information and advice about kinship care payments, however C had decided not to pursue an application as they did not want to share their financial information. We found evidence that C did not pursue an application for kinship care payments as they did not wish to share their financial information. We did not find any evidence that C was dissuaded from making an application. We did not uphold this complaint. However, our investigation found that the council’s policy on kinship care assistance was significantly out of date and was not updated between 2005 and 2020. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

C complained about the way the council handled their request for their child (A) to attend a specific secondary school. C considered that their request should have received priority over others as A had a sibling in the school. In order to determine catchment places for the school, the council conducted a ballot. A was not allocated a place during the ballot and was unable to attend the school. C remained dissatisfied with the council's handling of their complaint and brought the complaint to us. We found that the council had followed their policy to allocate catchment places. We were satisfied that, throughout the process, the council kept C appropriately informed about what was happening. At the end of the process, the council also informed C of their right to make a placing request. We did not find that the council had treated C and A less favourably than other families in the same position. We did not uphold C's complaint. During our consideration of complaint handling, we found that the council initially failed to correctly log C's correspondence as a complaint and handle it in line with their procedure. This resulted in the complaints process becoming unnecessarily prolonged by over two months. Therefore we 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.

C was a tenant of the council and requested repairs after reporting issues with damp, leaks and the boiler. When C ended the tenancy they were charged for leaving items in the property. C complained that the council's responses to C's requests for repairs, for recharging them when they left the property and how they communicated were unreasonable. C reported 90 repairs or faults over a tenancy of many years. With the exception of two occasions, the council responded within timescales as laid out in their repairs policy. Sometimes the fault required multiple attendances (due to access requirements or parts required) and led to the completion time taking longer but the initial response was within the target timeframe. We found that the council's response to C's requests for repairs were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. The council responded to C's complaints sometimes verbally, in writing or both. It was good practice to seek practical resolutions to complaints and the council made attempts to do this with bringing forward inspections and arranging tradespeople to attend C's property. We found that not all of the points C raised were responded to when they were first raised as a complaint, requiring C to raise the same point on multiple occasions and in some instances (such as the complaints about communication and previous faulty repairs) not being responded to at all. This was unreasonable. After the council received C's complaints they responded at the frontline resolution stage five times. The council did not advise C on how they could escalate their complaint as part of these responses after it was clear that C remained dissatisfied. It was unreasonable that the council failed to advise them of how to escalate the complaint. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. Lastly, the council were clear in the information which they provided to C in the tenancy agreement and terminations, that there was a requirement that

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow a number of social work procedures. Mr C and his wife (Mrs C) had been foster carers; however, following a child protection investigation (CPI) regarding one of the children they cared for, an investigation was carried out and Mr and Mrs C were deregistered as foster carers. Mr C complained that the council failed to follow procedures in relation to the CPI and the deregistration. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that, in relation to the CPI procedures, it was unclear as to whether one or two social workers should conduct interviews with children. We also found that the National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland was not followed as Mr and Mrs C were not provided with information about the concern at the earliest possibility. There was also not a clear record regarding the risks and benefits of moving the children from the placement. We further found that the CPI took too long to conclude, and that the council did not ensure that Mr and Mrs C were aware of their ability to access independent support and advice throughout the investigation. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. In relation to the deregistration, we found that the council had reasonably followed procedures and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that the foster carer agreement documents had not been reviewed or updated throughout Mr and Mrs C's time as foster carers, and we made a recommendation to the council on this matter. Finally, Mr C complained about the council's handling of his complaint. We found that the council had failed to deal with his complaint in a reasonable manner as timescales were not met, and at various points Mr C was given incorrect information about the complaints process. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Given that the council had stated that they were updating the foster carer agreements with a section on complaints, we asked for evidenc

Ms C complained about the redevelopment of a park which backs on to her property. Ms C also complained about how the council responded to her complaints. Ms C complained that the layout of the redevelopment of the park had changed and that she had not been consulted on this matter. The council explained that the original plans were concept designs only, and that it was normal for the specifics of the design to evolve as the project progressed. Non-material variation permissions were sought for the movement of some park equipment. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. The adviser said that the council's response and explanation were reasonable and was satisfied that the correct permissions had been sought. We did not uphold this complaint. In relation to Ms C's complaint about the way that the council had handled her complaint, we found that the council had not treated correspondence from either Ms C or her representative as complaints when they should have been. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Mr C complained about the council on behalf of his mother (Mrs A) who is a council tenant. Mr C said that her property had been in a state of disrepair with issues including repeated boiler breakdowns, faulty electrics, persistent roof leaks and draughty windows. Mrs A had been reporting and complaining about these issues for a number of years but the council had only recently brought the property up to a reasonable state of repair. Mr C considered that the time taken to repair the property and provide a final response to Mrs A's complaints had been unreasonable. We found that Mrs A had been complaining to the council, about a number of similar repair issues, for several years. There were a number of repairs mentioned in the complaints correspondence which were not recorded on the council's repair log, meaning it was difficult to assess whether these were completed within a reasonable timescale. The council told us that they did not record the outcomes of their inspections. This meant that it was very difficult to assess the ongoing condition of the property or evidence whether or not the faults being reported persisted throughout the period in question, or only required repair later in the process due to damage or deterioration. We considered it was likely that there were unreasonable delays on the part of the council. Additionally, the reason we were unable to confirm this was due to insufficient record-keeping. We also found that the council's complaints handling had been unreasonable as they delayed in referring Mrs A to ourselves. Therefore, we upheld both of Mr C's complaints.

Mrs C raised four complaints relating to a charging order (a charging order means that a property could be used to repay a debt) taken over her mother's home by the council. Mrs C complained that the council failed to advise her that her mother's care would be financed by a deferred payment, with a charging order being taken over the property. Mrs C also raised concern that the council failed to reasonably advise her that the charging order would rank ahead of other chargers. We found that the council wrote to Mrs C advising her that her mother was required to pay for a shortfall in funding, and that this could be covered by a deferred payment with a charging order being taken over the property. We found that the council also wrote to Mrs C to advise her that a charging order was being taken and that the property could not be sold until the council's debt, which was covered by the charging order, was repaid. We also found that the council advised that Mrs C should take independent legal advice on these issues. We did not uphold these two aspects of the complaint. Mrs C also complained that the council failed to provide her with a reasonable explanation regarding the charges incurred by the council which would be repaid on the sale of the property. Whilst we found that the council had provided information on some issues, we found that they did not explain specifically what Mrs C's mother would be charged for her weekly care. The council also charged Mrs C's mother to discharge the charging order and did not advise her up front that this was a cost she would be required to meet. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

A solicitors firm complained on behalf of their client (Ms A) about the management of asbestos at a property she had rented from the council, and the time taken to provide her with a decant from the property. Ms A's former property was constructed with asbestos containing materials. The council had surveyed these materials and considered that they were of low risk. Ms A was made aware of this when she moved in to the property. Approximately one year later, Ms A said the council's contractor undertook works at the property, and she was concerned that they damaged the flooring. Ms A said she reported this to the council. Approximately three years later, Ms A contacted the council to raise concerns about the flooring at the property and the council arranged an inspection. The council did not consider that the asbestos containing materials presented any risk. However, a decision was subsequently made to decant Ms A to another property. The council said that they offered one property, however, Ms A did not wish to move there. A number of months passed before Ms A was decanted to another property. Regarding the management of asbestos at the property, we found that the council had conducted a survey that established this was low risk and in good condition. We found that the council followed their asbestos management plan. We found no evidence that the council's contractor carried out works inappropriately, and the council had no records of being contacted at that time. When Ms A raised concerns about the property approximately three years later, we found that the council organised an inspection, and relied on the professional expertise of their officer in concluding that there was no risk from the asbestos. We found this to be reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In relation to the time taken to provide a decant, we noted the council's records indicated that one was initially offered, but Ms A did not wish to move. The council explai

Mr C complained about a planning application for a residential development of houses close to his own. He was concerned about the way the council considered, and then approved, the application. Mr C said that insufficient information was made available to allow the public to make informed objections and that his privacy had been overlooked to the benefit of the developer. Mr C also said that the council did not give proper consideration to their existing policies. During the build, the developer constructed a site office without the benefit of planning permission, and they advertised properties for sale. Mr C brought this to the council's attention but said that they failed to take appropriate action and did not require the developer to stop works. Mr C said that council officers allowed the developer to make a retrospective planning application for the site office, which Mr C felt was to his disadvantage. Mr C also complained about the way the council dealt with his subsequent complaints. The council took the view that they had provided sufficient information about the planning application for the residential development and that, in deciding it, had taken into account Mr C's objections. The council said that they had noted and looked into Mr C's concerns about the site office. They had contacted the developer about a number of issues and made a site visit. Following this, it was decided that a retrospective planning application was to be submitted and Mr C would be kept updated. It was also agreed that council officers would continue to monitor the site office. Mr C remained dissatisfied and complained to us. We took independent planning advice and we found that, in accordance with relevant guidance, the council had provided sufficient information for the application for the residential development to be considered reasonably and appropriately. We found that, after Mr C had reported concerns about the unauthorised building of the site office and the u

Ms C complained to the council about a decision taken to refer a concern about her child (child A) to the social work department. The referral occurred after the head teacher of child A's primary school became aware of an incident that was considered to be a potential welfare concern to the child. The head teacher separately called Ms C and child A's father (Mr B) and asked them both to attend a meeting. A meeting was not arranged and the head teacher then decided to refer the concern to social work. The reasons given for this decision were that the incident gave rise to a potential welfare concern to child A and that the parents refused to attend a meeting. Ms C said that neither she nor Mr B were able to attend a meeting on the date suggested and that the school was unwilling to arrange a meeting at a convenient time. We found that the school's records did not provide a consistent picture in relation to whether child A's parents were willing to attend a meeting. Based on the evidence available, we were unable to establish whether the parents would have attended a meeting on a different date. We were critical that the record-keeping in relation to this matter was not as complete as it should have been, and records were not kept in accordance with the council's standard circular, 'Protecting Children and Ensuring their Wellbeing'. We made recommendations in relation to this. We concluded that the decision to refer the concern to social work was one that involved the head teacher exercising their professional judgement based on their assessment of the information available at the time. We also found the correct procedure for the referral had broadly been followed. In view of this, we did not uphold this complaint. Ms C also complained that the school had unreasonably failed to amend information in child A's educational records. We found that Ms C had complained that the record was inaccurate, but we did not consider that Ms C made a clear request for this

Mr C reported problems with the behaviour of his neighbour, who is a private tenant, including a number of reports of noise nuisance, verbally abusive behaviour and other anti-social behaviour. Mr C wanted the council to take steps to address his concerns with his neighbour and his neighbour's landlord, who he had also contacted directly. Council wardens attended following reports but concluded there was not sufficient evidence of noise or other nuisance to take further action. The council made a number of attempts to resolve the situation with preventative measures but these were not successful. As matters escalated, the council met with Mr C and the landlord but Mr C continued to experience behaviour from his neighbour that caused him distress. Mr C complained to the council about their lack of action and a number of specific concerns about his interactions with council staff. The council responded to his specific concerns. Mr C remained concerned that the council had not taken adequate steps to address the problems he was experiencing and complained to our office. Our investigation considered the statutory duty placed on the council to act, as well as the council's own procedures. We found that, in the absence of evidence of serious anti-social behaviour, the council had no duty to act. We also considered that the council's decision (that the evidence they had about the behaviour of Mr C's neighbour did not give them grounds for further action) was a reasonable one. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201605670 as a PDF (11.32 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of the decision to change her son (child A)'s school class for the following academic year. Child A had been informed of his class before the school summer holidays. However, very shortly before the beginning of the school term, Mrs C was told that he would not be going into the class of which he had been previously informed. Mrs C was unhappy with the way the council handled this decision. Specifically, she felt that they had failed to take into account the provisions of the Scottish Government's 'Getting it Right for Every Child' (GIRFEC) approach by not consulting with her, her husband or child A about the decision and that they had failed to provide her with details of the information on which the council's decision had been based. Mrs C also felt that the council had failed to give a reasonable explanation for their decision, delayed unreasonably in informing her and child A about the decision, and failed to consider the effect the decision would have on child A. As part of our investigation, we received further information from the council about the complaint. Although we could not provide Mrs C with the confidential information received which had led to the council's decision, we were satisfied that the council's explanation for reaching their decision was reasonable and was in line with their policy on the selection of pupils for classes. We also considered the provisions of GIRFEC in relation to children, young people and their families understanding what is happening and having their wishes heard and understood. In this case, child A and his family were not adequately informed about what was happening and why, or given the opportunity to have their wishes heard and understood before the decision was reached. We thought that, had the council contacted child A and his family, this would have also prepared them for the possibility that child A may have to change classes, rather than this decision coming with

Mr C was unhappy with the way the council handled a request for a non-material variation (NMV) to a planning application. He said that the council had withheld and delayed the online publication of documentation. The NMV report by the council had contained two inaccuracies, which the council had already identified and agreed. Mr C felt that the council had failed to have appropriate policies/procedures in place to prevent inaccuracies in the published report and that, because of the errors identified, they had failed to accurately and correctly assess the NMV. We sought independent planning advice. We found that there was no statutory obligation on the council to publish these documents. In light of this, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We found that it did not appear that appropriate cross-checking had occurred in this case. We were concerned that the system of checks put in place in part to identify errors had failed on this occasion. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We also upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had failed to accurately and correctly assess the NMV due to the factual errors in the report. However, given that the council had already acknowledged the errors, apologised and discussed the matter with the planning officer concerned, and that the errors in the report did not lead us to question the soundness of the council's overall decision, we did not make further recommendations.

Mrs C complained that the council failed to comply with their bullying policy. Mrs C had raised issues with the council in relation to her daughter (Miss A) being bullied at school. The council explained that they had not initially treated the issues raised by Mrs C as bullying. They provided logs detailing concern by Mrs C that Miss A was being bullied and outlined the action taken by the school. Mrs C was also concerned that Miss A was not given a suitable room on a school trip in light of problems with bullying and that the council had not looked into why her daughter had slept outside her room. In their response, the council provided a copy of the risk assessment that detailed that spot-checks would be carried out. However, there was no record detailing these checks. Although the council apologised to Mrs C that the information she provided prior to the trip had not been passed on to staff, we were concerned that there was no record of conversations with staff members. We therefore upheld these elements of Mrs C's complaint. Mrs C also complained that the school did not provide accurate information on whether the school operated a buddy system. The council acknowledged and apologised for this and we therefore upheld Mrs C's complaint. Mrs C said that the council failed to keep reasonable care records. The council said they were satisfied that Miss A's notes contained sufficient information. However, we found in particular that they did not include a record of a pre-arranged meeting. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaint. Mrs C also complained that staff at Miss A's school had inappropriate conversations with Miss A. While we were satisfied with the way the council had acknowledged the concerns Mrs C raised with them in this regard and had apologised, on balance we upheld Mrs C's complaint. Finally, Mrs C complained that the council did not handle her complaint or communicate with her reasonably. The council said that it was difficult to communicate

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow their Unacceptable Actions Policy when restricting his communication with them. Over a number of years, Mr C was involved with a website forum which focused on local politics. Material was posted on the forum which in the view of the council was offensive. The council wrote to Mr C advising that they were taking action under their policy and that they would no longer respond to communication from Mr C, whether written or verbal. Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's actions, including that they should have issued a warning and that the council's restrictions had no connection with the allegations made against him. Having reviewed the council's Unacceptable Actions Policy, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that the council should have issued a formal warning to Mr C in relation to the conduct they were concerned about. We also found that the council should have provided Mr C with a more robust explanation of why they considered the restrictions on communication to have been necessary.

Miss C complained that the council failed to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale and had not dealt reasonably with a request for rent remission (that she should not pay full rent during some of the time the repairs were taking place). While we noted that a number of repairs were required and that there were delays, we did not find evidence that this was as a result of problems which the council could have predicted. Regarding the request for a rent remission, we noted that Miss C had taken possession of the property following a mutual exchange, whereby she had agreed to take the property in the condition it was in. The council's view was that the property was habitable throughout the repairs, and as such full rent payment was due and no remission would be granted. We did not find this to be unreasonable and did not uphold Miss C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201507733 as a PDF (11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C removed her child from school and requested a transfer to a new school as she was concerned about the impact of the school environment on her child's wellbeing. The school raised concerns about her child's absence and scheduled a meeting to discuss this. Ms C subsequently found out that the school nurse had contacted her child's GP to request information just before this meeting and a report had been faxed to the school. Ms C complained that the head teacher inappropriately made this request. In particular, the GP records stated the requested information was required for an inter-agency meeting with child protection concerns involved, when the meeting did not involve other agencies and there were no child protection concerns. The council said the request was made by the school nurse who only asked the GP practice if someone could call the school to discuss if there was anything in the child's medical history relevant to concerns about their ongoing wellbeing and absence from school. The council said there were no child protection concerns but it was not possible to seek this information from Ms C as she refused to have any contact with them. However, when we asked for evidence of the lack of communication, the council acknowledged that in fact Ms C did have contact with both the school and council officers during this period. After investigating these issues and reviewing the records from the school and GP we found that although it was clear that inaccurate information was received by the GP about child protection concerns, it was not clear that this was due to the actions of the head teacher and we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. However, we were critical that the council did not make any record of the request for information and did not inform Ms C or the child about this. We also found failings with the council's complaints handling.

Mr C had complained to the council about their handling of his request to have his home adapted. He was unhappy with their decision and asked for this to be reviewed by the complaints review committee (CRC). Mr C was dissatisfied with the way that the CRC considered his complaint and asked us to look at his concerns. Mr C complained that the CRC had failed to adequately consider the information provided and that there were unreasonable delays in the process. After investigation, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the CRC had an extensive pack of information available to them and had heard the position of both sides. We also found that Mr C had agreed that the CRC should reach their decision on the basis of the evidence they had already heard and so we were not critical that they had reached their decision after considering the information available to them at that time. While we did find that there had been a significant deviation from the statutory timescales for a CRC, we considered that the council had provided a reasonable explanation for this. Adaptations were made to the standard practice due to Mr C's condition, which meant that the case could not be heard over one or two days as normal. Availability of all parties, including Mr C, council staff and CRC panel members, then became a factor in reconvening the meeting. We were satisfied that the delays were reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. Related reading View Decision Report 201303565 as a PDF (11.3 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow their anti-bullying policies when they were informed of incidents of bullying against his son. In particular, Mr C was concerned about an incident, which occurred in early 2015, which was not dealt with as an incident of bullying. He was also concerned that the council failed to deal with previous incidents of bullying appropriately. The council's investigation found no evidence of earlier incidents of bullying which were not properly dealt with at the time. They did, however, acknowledge that the incident which occurred in early 2015 should have been handled differently and in line with their anti-bullying policy. Mr C was not happy with the council's response and he approached our office. We noted previous incidents recorded by the council but, as Mr C had not provided any evidence or detail of previous incidents, we could not conclude that there were other instances which the council had failed to record. We agreed with the council that they had failed to deal with the incident in early 2015 in line with their anti-bullying policy and, as a result, we upheld the complaint. We found that the steps taken by the council following their review of the complaint were appropriate and comprehensive, and we made no recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201407841 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C made several reports to the council about anti-social behaviour by a council tenant and her visitors. She complained to the council that they had not taken sufficient action to protect her and asked that they investigate her complaints. The council responded that support services had been involved and that, as there had been no recent reports of anti-social behaviour, they had closed their case. They also said that they had repaired the damage to their tenant’s door after the most recent incident. Mrs C was not satisfied that they had done all that they should to resolve the problems she and her neighbours faced. We investigated the complaint and the council provided their records. We recognised that, due to confidentiality, the council had not disclosed to Mrs C details of the action taken in response to her complaints. As a result, Mrs C had gained the impression that insufficient action was being taken. However, in response to our enquiries, the council provided us with information about their action. We recognised that, as it had been agreed that Mrs C would report any incident verbally, the council had not provided an incident diary. However, we felt that the council should have considered the use of such a diary, as this would have enabled Mrs C to have a written statement of the incidents. In addition, while there had been a delay in completing all the repairs to the door, these had now been completed. While we recognised that Mrs C was only provided with limited information on the action being taken by the council, we were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council took reasonable action to address the complaints received. We did not uphold the complaint.