SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that the council did not properly consider their concerns about work being carried out on a neighbour’s summerhouse by someone that they believed was unqualified. C also said that the council inaccurately stated that no building warrant was required for the summerhouse. The council advised C of the actions that they had taken in response to C's reports and explained why they considered that the summerhouse did not require a building warrant. In relation to electrical and gas safety concerns, the council explained that the necessary gas and electrical certification would be requested as part of the completion process when a completion certificate was applied for. They also advised that any concerns about illegal gas works could be made to Gas Safe Register. We took independent advice from a planning and building standards adviser. We found that the information in the council's response was reasonable and adequately covered the council’s position. We also found that the council reasonably considered and investigated C's reports of works being undertaken by an unqualified individual. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 202404014 as a PDF (24.33 KB) Updated: February 18, 2026

A & B complained to the council about their handling of their claims procedure in relation to the Trams to Newhaven project. A and B were unhappy with the council’s response because they considered that the council failed to appropriately address and investigate their complaint and that relevant issues were not given due consideration. A and B complained to the SPSO. After an initial review, we considered that the council had failed to engage with A and B to specify their complaint. We also considered that the council had opted to summarise what they regarded as the issues of complaint without obtaining A and B’s agreement to this. As the council had not fully addressed or clearly responded to all of A and B’s concerns, we directed that they should provide an additional response. The council provided A and B with an additional response and apologised to them for failing to adequately address their complaint. A and B then complained to our office that the council failed to investigate their complaint in accordance with their complaints handling procedure (CHP). During our investigation the council acknowledged that A and B’s complaint was not fully responded to and was not handled in accordance with their CHP. We also considered that the council failed to act in line with their CHP when initially investigating and responding to A and B’s complaint. We upheld the complaint. The council informed us of the learning that they identified from A and B’s complaint and their wider experience of the Trams to Newhaven project. We considered this to be an example of good practice.

C is the grandparent of A and B, whose parents were separated. C complained about the actions of the council after A and B’s parent (X) submitted an authorised absence request from school to spend some time abroad. C considered that the council failed to check with A and B’s other parent (Y) that they were in agreement with the proposed absence from school and that the council failed to reasonably assess the risks when granting the authorised absence request. C complained that the council failed to reasonably assess the authorised absence request. We found that the council failed to reasonably assess the authorised absence request as relevant paperwork was not completed or a rationale documented to support their decision. We upheld the complaint. C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to inform Y of the request. We found that the council reasonably followed their policy in relation to communicating with Y. We did not uphold this complaint.

C complained about the council’s social work service during the pre-adoptive process of their child (A). C complained about the council’s decision to temporarily suspend A’s nursery placement and about the council’s communication of their decision. C complained that the council failed to have an appropriate level of contact with A during the pre-adoptive process, and that the council failed to reasonably prepare and submit a report which is required from an adoption agency for court, regarding the suitability of the prospective adoptive parents. The council apologised for failing to communicate information about A’s suspended nursery placement at a time when open and honest communication could take place. We took independent advice from a social worker with experience in fostering and adoption. We found that the council’s decision to temporarily suspend A’s nursery placement was made without consultation with A’s pre-adoptive carers or nursery, who should have been part of the decision-making process. We upheld this point of C’s complaint. We found the council’s social work visits to A did not meet the frequency or timing set out in the council’s policy or legislation. We upheld this point of C’s complaint. We found the council prepared and submitted the required report within the statutory timescale and reasonably communicated with C about the report. We did not uphold this point of C’s complaint.

C complained that social work did not adequately safeguard their child (A) when they disclosed that they had been a victim of assault. C also complained that they were not informed of the incident. The council considered that appropriate support had been offered to A. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We reviewed the relevant case records and the council’s child protection procedures. We found that the council failed to meet their obligations and take the appropriate action in response to the disclosures made by A. We found that there was sufficient concern about A’s ability to maintain their wellbeing and that social work should have instigated their child protection procedures. We also found that there was insufficient recording within the case records of a clear plan and rationale to explain decision making. As such, we upheld the complaint.

C complained following the council's decision to decline C’s request for financial kinship care assistance in respect of their grandchild (A). C complained that the council failed to adequately consider their eligibility when there was a change of circumstances in the family home and they became the primary carer for A. In responding to C’s complaint, the council upheld their original decision to decline C’s request for kinship allowance on the grounds that the decision for A to reside with C had been a private family arrangement and that they had not formally placed A in C’s care. The council did acknowledge that conflicting information was given to C regarding their eligibility for kinship allowance, that the provision of information regarding eligibility on the council’s website was lacking, and that the process for challenging the council’s decision on C’s application for kinship allowance was unclear. They agreed to take a number of improvement actions in response. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. In addition to the failings identified from the council's own complaint investigation, we found that when there was a reported change in circumstances in the family home, the council failed to carry out an assessment of A’s wellbeing or seek their views to determine whether they were a child at risk of being looked after (an eligible child). We found that when C made a request for kinship allowance, the council’s assessment was lacking in detail and reasoning, and failed to consider A’s wellbeing and seek their views. We found that the council’s position that C was not eligible for kinship allowance failed to adequately take into account the relevant legislation and national guidance or the changed circumstances in the family home. We also found that the council failed to provide a full and informed response to C’s complaint. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

C complained that the council unreasonably assessed that a property was in a safe and lettable condition when they handed the tenancy over, that the council failed to make, or communicate, reasonable arrangements for carrying out repairs, and that the council failed to provide a reasonable response. In respect to the aspect of the complaint that the council had unreasonably assessed that their property was in a lettable condition when the tenancy was allocated, we found that the capacity of the council’s systems to record safety and quality checks led to the council being unable to evidence that the property met the lettable standard at the time the tenancy was allocated. We therefore upheld this complaint. C also complained that the council failed to make, or communicate, reasonable arrangements for carrying out repairs. We found that C was put to having to arrange repairs that could have been carried out before the property was let. We also found that the council did not communicate effectively with C when appointments were cancelled or had to be rearranged. We therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint. C also complained that the council did not provide a reasonable response to their complaints. We found that the responses to the complaints did not address all of the concerns raised and failed to recognise the impact the issues had on C. We therefore also upheld this complaint.

C complained that the council failed to provide their grandchild (A) with reasonable support following an incident at primary school. It is accepted by the council that the school should have held a second Child Protection Meeting (CPM). This was a clear oversight from the school, and it is not clear why this happened. This oversight led to C not being given feedback from the educational psychologist who had planned to feed back at the next CPM. We found that the support offered to A was documented, evidence based and well thought out. An educational psychologist did not have any concerns about A, following their observation of them in class, that would have indicated further support measures were needed. When C escalated their complaint with the council, we found that the council provided reasonable answers to the questions put to them in a reasonable timeframe. When it became clear that a CPM that had been cancelled had not been rescheduled, the council offered a further meeting which we consider was a reasonable remedy in the circumstances. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202204879 as a PDF (24.34 KB) Updated: August 16, 2023

C complained about The City of Edinburgh Council’s administration of their council tax account. C complained that the council issued reminders for council tax arrears and threats of legal action when they had paid their council tax in accordance with a payment arrangement. C also complained that the council failed to respond to the their complaint in accordance with their Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP). The council apologised for delay in responding to C’s complaint. They said that a council tax payment reminder had been sent to C as they had made a payment without using their reference number. This had meant that the payment hadn’t been allocated to C’s account. C remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. C complained that the council had failed to respond to their correspondence and had failed to take the fact that they are a vulnerable person into account. We found that the council had repeatedly failed to engage with C’s correspondence over a significant period of time. We found serious and repeated failures by the council to adhere to their CHP. We considered that the council acted without any consideration or accommodation of C’s vulnerability. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaints.

C complained about the council's handling of reports of anti-social behaviour and their subsequent complaint about the way that these issues were handled. The council housed a number of vulnerable and high-risk tenants in the same block of flats as theirs. C complained that, over a period of seven years, the council tenants were involved in a number of incidences of anti-social behaviour, some involving serious criminal activity. The council's investigation report concluded that the view they were failing in their duties under anti-social behaviour legislation may have been based on a lack of understanding of the priority for support rather than enforcement, the level of evidence required for enforcement, and a lack of clarity around activities and behaviours which sit within the scope of the relevant legislation. They did, however, recognise that their communication fell short of the level of consistency that is expected. We were largely satisfied that the Family and Household Support team investigated C's reports of anti-social behaviour in line with the council's procedure. However, in terms of the procedure there is a clear expectation that the nature of the complaint should be agreed at the outset, that updates should be given at agreed times, and that discussion should take place regarding what outcomes could realistically be achieved. We found no evidence of a structured approach to this communication. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint. With regard to the complaint handling, we found the total length of time taken to respond to C's complaint was unreasonable. There was a significant delay to the response being issued, and we found no evidence of regular updates during this delay. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

C complained that the council failed to communicate with them reasonably in respect of the strategies used to prevent their child (A) being bullied at school by another pupil (B). Specifically, C complained about not being aware of the strategy in place for B at lunchtimes which resulted in A meeting B unaccompanied. C also complained about the effectiveness of the strategies used to protect A from B, noting their particular concern about both pupils being taught in the same location. However, in accordance with the SPSO Act 2002 we refrained from commenting on the quality of the strategies used. Rather, we investigated whether the council had acted in keeping with their policies and procedures. We found that the council had implemented strategies in line with their policies and procedures, and that these were kept under review. We also found evidence of regular communication with C and A. Of note, the incident where A encountered B occurred outside of school grounds. As the strategies in place where only applicable within the school and its grounds, we did not find the communication with C on this matter to be unreasonable. We also concluded that the strategies implemented by the school were in keeping with the council's policies and procedures and that steps had been taken to mitigate against A encountering B. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202104315 as a PDF (24.37 KB) Updated: May 18, 2022

C complained that the council had failed to reasonably maintain and repair their property. We found that there had been delays in carrying out repairs to C’s heating system and windows and that the level of communication about the delays was unreasonable. We also found that C was left without central heating for a period. Therefore, we upheld this complaint. C also complained that the council failed to maintain an agreed reasonable adjustment that they would not be contacted or visited in the morning. C said that despite complaining to the council about breaches to the agreement, the problem continued. We found that the limited capacity of the council’s systems to record, effectively communicate and implement an agreed adjustment was a significant factor in the council’s failure to provide C with a service in line with the agreed adjustment. Although comments in the council’s complaint files indicated that officers were aware of these issues, it was unclear to what extent, if any, steps were taken to escalate or resolve the issues with the systems. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

C complained about the council's lack of action in relation to reports of anti-social behaviour about a neighbour made by C and their family over a number of years. The council had accepted in their complaint response to C that there had historically been a failure to appropriately record and take action on reports of anti-social behaviour, and we considered this failing to be unreasonable. We therefore upheld the complaint. We noted that following the case being taken over by a new officer and a new manager, the council had acted appropriately, including meeting with C and their family and taking action on the reports of anti-social behaviour. We considered that much of this, potentially, could have been done at an earlier point, however, we acknowledged that things now appeared to be being handled in line with relevant guidance and took this into account when making recommendations.

Mr C is a tenant of the council and following an inspection from his housing officer, he was advised that he had too many cats in his property and was instructed to reduce the number to three. Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a valid reason for why he should reduce the number of pets he has. He noted that his tenancy agreement did not specify a number. The council said that they had received reports about the condition of Mr C's property from their repairs tradesmen and a neighbour. The housing officer had also carried out an inspection. The council explained that while the tenancy agreement does not specify the number of pets a tenant should have, it is at their discretion as a landlord, and their decision is based on reasonableness and a consideration of the size of the property. We found that the council had adequate evidence to support their decision that Mr C should reduce the number of his pets in the form of reports from their repairs tradesmen, housing officers and a neighbour. We also noted that the council sought legal advice regarding their interpretation of the tenancy agreement and that this was good practice. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201805986 as a PDF (23.85 KB) Updated: July 24, 2019

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to provide accurate information for couples seeking to adopt and that they unreasonably prevented her from progressing her adoption application. Mrs C said that she had not been clearly informed that her weight would be an issue, or how much weight she needed to lose in order to progress. Mrs C also felt that the process was unfair as it relied on Body Mass Index (a measure for estimating human body fat) which she felt was not an accurate measure of her health. We found that the council had provided appropriate information to Mrs C in relation to weight and adoption. We also found that the council had appropriately followed medical advice and had not unreasonably prevented Mrs C from progressing her adoption assessment. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint. In relation to complaint handling, we found that the council had not handled Mrs C's complaint reasonably. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. We noted that the council had recognised and apologised for this failing and we made no further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201802493 as a PDF (23.8 KB) Updated: July 24, 2019

Mr C complained that the council failed to investigate his complaints about anti- social behaviour properly, resulting in him being put at risk. Mr C said he had been threatened and harassed but the council had failed to act on his complaints, deliberately ignoring him so that a final warning issued to his neighbour could lapse. We found that Mr C's complaints of anti-social behaviour had been investigated. When the council had been able to verify the complaints, they had taken action against Mr C's neighbour, including issuing a final warning. There was no evidence that one had been issued and allowed to lapse, or that Mr C had complained of direct threats to his safety. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that the council failed to deal with his complaints about the level of service he had received. We found that the council had acknowledged a failure to respond timeously to Mr C's complaints and apologised appropriately. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint but made no further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201800864 as a PDF (23.77 KB) Updated: March 20, 2019

Mr C complained about the assessment and subsequent care package offered in respect of his son (Mr A). Mr C moved from another local authority area where he was in receipt of a package of care for Mr A. Following an assessment of Mr  A's needs after he moved to Edinburgh, Mr A was awarded a significantly reduced budget. Mr C disagreed with the amount of funding provided and complained that there was a lack of transparency about the assessment and decision-making process. The council explained that different local authorities will have different eligibility criteria, therefore, it is likely that they will not receive the same level of funding. The council also acknowledged that the package of care perhaps did not meet Mr A's needs and that they could have elaborated further on the reason for their decision. We took independent advice from a social worker. We did not find any evidence of maladministration in the fact that the council had a different eligibility criteria and threshold for funding compared to the other local authority. However, we did find that there was a lack of transparency in terms of the council's assessment and decision-making process and that this was not in line with national guidance. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We noted that the council have taken reasonable steps to review and improve their procedures and they also reviewed Mr A's assessment, therefore, we did not make any further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201801180 as a PDF (24 KB) Updated: February 20, 2019

Mr C complained that the council failed to investigate the issue of strong odours which were affecting him at his place of work. These were coming from a nearby restaurant and separate smells from a sewer pipe at a neighbouring hotel. Mr C said that it was the council's responsibility to ensure that both the restaurant and hotel were complying with health and safety regulations. The council responded by advising that they had investigated the matter and attended the restaurant who agreed to take action to reduce the smell. The council felt that this resolved this particular issue. They also contacted the hotel owner who confirmed that they were aware of the issue and were working with the water provider to resolve this. The council held the view that the matter was in hand, and as they did not have authority over the sewerage pipes, they would not take any further action. Following continued complaints, the council visited Mr C's place of work but did not identify any smells that would be classed as a Statutory Nuisance and therefore could not issue an Abatement Order. They also liaised with the water provider to encourage the necessary work to be completed. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaint to us. We found that the council had responded to the issues appropriately and promptly. The council remained largely involved in trying to resolve the issues by assisting the relevant parties involved despite having limited authority. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to his complaint. We found that some of the language used in their response to Mr  C was inappropriate and they failed to advise him on how to escalate his complaint. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. The council acknowledged these failings and have already taken action to prevent issues occurring again in the future.

Ms C complained that the council had unreasonably responded to her reports of anti-social behaviour. We found that the council responded to and investigated her reports of anti-social behaviour but found that the noise witnessed was everyday living noise, and therefore, was not something they could take formal action against. The council suggested mediation as an option to resolve the conflict. We noted that the council followed their process in responding to Ms C's complaints, with the exception of closing the cases in writing and categorising the complaints. The council made contact with Ms C after each report, were clear about potential outcomes, liaised with relevant agencies and investigated Ms C's reports of anti-social noise. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. We did provide feedback to the council regarding closing cases in writing and categorising complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201802931 as a PDF (23.72 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's appointment system for electrical and gas safety checks. In particular, that the council unreasonably attempted to access his property and did not offer flexibility over the time and dates of their appointments. Mr C also complained that the council failed to carry out a reasonable investigation into his complaints and that their communcation was poor. We found that the council letters lacked clarity and gave incorrect information that the safety checks would be considered emergency repairs. We noted that the response to Mr C's complaint was delayed with vague communication and that there was a lack of referral on correspondence to the next stage of the complaints process. We also found that the council lacked flexibility in their approach to the safety checks and failed to follow their processes, incorrectly attempting to access Mr C's property when they had not exhausted all previous steps outlined in their process. Therefore, we upheld all of Mr C's complaints.

Mr C complained that the council did not take reasonable action following various reports he made about his neighbour's antisocial behaviour. We found that the council assessed and investigated the reports, made visits to the block, undertook interviews, and also took into account actions of other bodies and court action. The council also re-assessed the situation as new information was presented or new developments occurred. We decided that the council took reasonable action in line with their policy and explored possible avenues to resolution. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201800339 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. In particular that the council had failed to consider their waterside development policy (policy Des 9), had failed to consult with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and had unreasonably accepted that works for the planning application were initiated on time. Mr C also complained about the council's communication with him. We took independent planning advice. We found that that policy Des 9 should have been referred to in the report of handling (a report containing information on a planning application). It was not possible to know whether this policy had been taken into consideration during the processing of the planning application, as was required. We also found that it was not possible to say whether consideration of policy Des 9 would have resulted in a different outcome. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We also found that SEPA should have been consulted and we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We did not find any evidence that the council had unreasonably accepted that works for the planning application were initiated on time and we did not uphold this part of the complaint. Regarding communication, we found that some of the issues raised by Mr C had been not been adequately addressed, however, other issues raised by him had been reasonably clarified. We were concerned that a further response letter had had to be issued to Mr C. The council had accepted that there had been a delay in responding and that Mr C should not have had to submit a formal complaint to prompt a full response to his enquiries. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C is an adviser to Ms A. Ms A was a looked after child by the council in a foster care placement, which ended with short notice. At the time the council advised Ms A that she should present as homeless in order to secure accommodation. Ms C complained that the council failed to provide the required support and aftercare to Ms A as a looked after child, and that they wrongly used homelessness legislation in order to secure accommodation for Ms A. Ms C also complained about the council's handling of the complaint. Ms C said that the council failed to provide a response to the complaint within the agreed extended timescale and she also questioned the impartiality of the investigating officer. We took independent advice from a social worker. While the council acknowledged that they failed to provide consistent support to Ms A, we did not consider that the council adequately acknowledged their failings. We identified that the council missed a number of opportunities to plan proactively for Ms A leaving care, that they wrongly advised Ms A to present as homeless and that they failed to evidence the after-care support they provided. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. With regards to the council's handling of Ms C's complaint, we found that the investigating officer appointed was suitably impartial, and that they took steps to ensure they took into account Ms A's views. However, we recognise they failed to respond within the agreed timescale. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C is the holder of a blue badge which was issued by a different council. When his blue badge did not arrive, Mr C reported this to the issuing council, who subsequently issued a replacement blue badge and cancelled the original one. The original blue badge eventually arrived and Mr C proceeded to use this, unaware that this was the cancelled badge. The City of Edinburgh Council issued Mr C with two penalty charge notices and impounded his car for displaying a cancelled blue badge. The council also observed on three separate occasions that Mr C displayed a valid blue badge, leading them to conclude that he was in possession of two blue badges. Mr C complained that the council wrongly asserted that he was in possession of two blue badges. We found that the council's blue badge recording systems were insufficient and did not produce consistent information. Therefore, we could not be satisfied that Mr C was in possession of two blue badges. We consided that the council had failed to thoroughly investigate the complaint and, therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We also noted that the council failed to provide us with all the relevant evidence and made a recommendation in light of this.

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council as they were unhappy with the way their child (child A) was dealt with when they suffered a head injury at their primary school. The head injury occurred when child A fell during playtime. Following the injury they were confused, distressed, and were suffering from loss of memory. Mr and Mrs C felt that an ambulance should have been called immediately. Instead, the school observed child A for a short time, before calling Mr and Mrs C and asking them to pick child A up and take them to the GP. This meant that there was a period of around 45 minutes from the injury occurring to them attending to pick up their child. Mr and Mrs C complained that the relevant council procedure was not appropriately followed when the school were dealing with child A's head injury. Mr and Mrs C were also dissatisfied with the standard of the council's complaints handling. The council provided us with a copy of their Accidents to Pupils procedure, which instructed staff on when emergency medical assistance should be sought for head injuries, as well as providing more general guidance about how injured children should be transported to hospital if medical treatment not needing an ambulance was required. The procedure said that an ambulance should be called immediately where: the child was unconscious for any length of time; the child was vomiting frequently; neck pain was associated with the injury; or where the child's condition was 'giving cause for concern'. It appeared clear from the council's records that staff were concerned by child A's condition. This is why staff requested the child was collected and taken to their GP. However, the procedure required that they should have called an ambulance or, if they did not consider their condition serious enough to warrant emergency transport, they should have arranged for them to be transported directly to hospital by taxi or a member of staff's personal vehicle. Instead, they attempted to