SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about events at their child (A)'s school, in relation to suspected candidate malpractice and subsequent investigations into the school’s handling of the matters. C queried whether the council followed the correct process when C raised their concerns, as C was of the view the council should have followed the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA)’s Centre Malpractice Procedure, rather than the complaint procedure. C also raised concern that the investigating officer had shown bias in the process, that the child friendly complaint process had not been followed, and that the Stage 2 complaint response downplayed or omitted serious breaches, contained inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and directly contradicted the SQA’s findings. We found that while it was reasonable for the council to use the complaint handling process as opposed to the SQA’s centre malpractice process, they appeared to be uncertain about the correct procedures. We also found that the council failed to address legitimate concerns about bias in the appointment of the investigating officer or respond to these issues. We found that the council failed to follow child friendly complaint handling procedures, as they did not seek consent and views from the young person at the appropriate stage, and did not clearly consider and take into account the young person’s views when making their decision. Finally, we found that there were incompatibilities in outcome of the council’s investigation. We upheld the complaint. The council had begun to take action to address these failings including developing a Malpractice Policy, building steps into their processes to ensure the views of young people are included in investigations, and committing to refresher complaint handling training, so we asked for evidence of these actions.

C is a council tenant and lives with their family. C complained that the property they were living in suffered from significant problems with damp and mould. C believed that the conditions in the property were adversely affecting the family’s health and damaging their possessions. It was acknowledged by the council that C had been raising concerns for some time. Although the council had carried out works and surveys on C’s property, damp problems remained. We found that the primary cause of damp had not been identified and the council accepted further works were required, and that the time taken to address the problem had been excessive. We found that the council could not evidence that they had considered the impact on C of their living conditions and it was not clear that the property was treated as a priority in line with the council’s revised damp and mould policy. We upheld C’s complaint that the issues with their property had not been dealt with reasonably.

C complained that the council failed to deal with concerns that they raised about alleged anti-social behaviour (ASB) involving a neighbour. During our investigation, we considered whether or not the council had followed their anti-social behaviour policy (ASB policy) in relation to their handling of C’s concerns. We found that the ASB service had appropriately responded to C’s first two calls. However, we found that C raised further concerns with the housing team via email, and no evidence was provided by the council to indicate that this information was appropriately passed on to the ASB service for their consideration. The council also failed to provide this office with evidence that they had contacted Police Scotland in relation to the incidents reported by C. We also found that the council failed to keep C informed and up-to-date. Therefore, we upheld this part of C’s complaint. C also complained that the council failed to handle their complaint reasonably. The council accepted that there were failings in relation to timescales and acknowledgement of C's complaint. We found further failings relating to timescales, communication and record-keeping. Therefore, we upheld this part of C’s complaint.

C complained about the fitting of new windows to their property. C said there was wind, water, and noise ingress and the window units were not fitted correctly - specifically that they were not the correct size. When reporting this to the council, some workmen agreed with C’s position and others considered that there was no issue. C took photographs of holes around the windows before these were covered with MDF wood by the council. C told us that the council had not repaired the holes; instead they had packed the holes with insulation before providing new MDF surrounds. Our initial view of the complaint indicated that the council had not appropriately investigated the issues C reported, and may have not appropriately resolved matters (i.e. by covering with MDF and using insulation). The council asked the manufacturer of the windows to inspect them. The manufacturer said that the window units were not faulty. The council then decided that nothing further could be done. Our initial assessment of the complaint identified that the council could not evidence the outcome of the manufacturer inspection. As such, we asked the council if they would be willing to arrange an independent inspection and report and take any follow-up actions identified to resolve the issues. The council initially declined this opportunity but later felt it would be appropriate for them to take this action. Therefore, we closed the complaint as resolved as the council agreed to take the action requested. However, we have made clear if the issue is not resolved and/or C remains unhappy that they can come back to us and we may re-open the complaint and consider it further. We have asked the council to provide evidence of the action taken. Related reading View Decision Report 202210170 as a PDF (24.62 KB) Updated: April 17, 2024

C complained that the council failed to undertake a proper assessment of them as a prospective adoptive parent for a foster child placed in their care (A). C also complained that the transition of A from foster care to their adoptive family was unreasonable. The council said that it was decided that C would not be considered further as a prospective adoptive parent for A based on C's responses to enquiries made of them at the early screening stage and their circumstances at the time. C did not agree with the council's response and brought their complaint to the SPSO. We took independent advice from a social worker. We noted that the council had acknowledged their failure to ensure sufficient visits with C had taken place. However, we found that the council's decision not to consider C further as an adoptive parent was reasonable and did not uphold this part of C's complaint. In relation to the transition of A to their adoptive family, we found that this was reasonable and decisions were made with the best interests of A in mind. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202005474 as a PDF (24.27 KB) Updated: October 18, 2023

C’s child (A) was assaulted at school by other pupils. C complained that the council had failed to protect their child, failed to provide appropriate first aid and failed to provide a reasonable level of support to them following the incident. C also complained that the council failed to safeguard A from the bullying they subsequently experienced. In their response to C’s complaint, the council provided details of the first aid provided and the steps taken to notify C’s spouse of what had happened. They said that the school had introduced a number of measures to help keep child A safe after the incident. The council initially said that C had refused to take part in restorative meetings, which they considered would have helped to resolve matters. After C complained about the council’s response, the council conceded that C had not been invited to a restorative meeting and apologised for this inaccurate information in their response. We reviewed the council’s actions with reference to the relevant council policies. We considered that the assault had been taken seriously and acted upon swiftly. However, we found that although the council endeavoured to put in place a number of arrangements aimed at keeping A safe, these did not appear to have been fully implemented. We found that certain aspects of the council’s policies were not followed, that the council acknowledged that no restorative meetings took place and that counselling was not available to child A. We found that the council failed to ensure A was sufficiently supported after the incident and we also found shortcomings in the council’s complaints handling. We therefore upheld this complaint.

C complained about the council’s handling of their council tax account. They had applied for a single person discount and a council tax reduction. C complained that the council failed to manage their account properly, did not communicate with them and issued warning notices for payment while the account was in dispute. C said that the council’s handling of their account amounted to discrimination. We found that there were significant delays throughout the council’s assessment. However, we noted that this took place during the COVID-19 pandemic when services were disrupted. We found nothing to suggest the council were discriminating against C but considered that their communication was generally poor. We were satisfied that C’s council tax reduction entitlement was assessed reasonably, but we considered more could have been done to obtain the relevant information for the purposes of assessing C’s application for single person discount. We upheld C's complaint.

C complained on behalf of their child (A). A, who has additional support needs, transferred to a new school. C complained about one of A’s National 5 grades, unhappy at the level of the award submitted by the school to the Scottish Qualifications Agency. C believed the decision on the level of award was made using incomplete or inaccurate information. C was also concerned about how the school shared information with staff concerning the additional support needs for A. C was also unhappy at the level of communication received from the school in relation to A. C complained to the council but was unhappy at their response and brought their complaint to this office. The council said that A’s needs were communicated to all staff with an enhanced provision of support in place, that the school regularly communicated with C including highlighting a risk of a non-award in a National 5 subject and that there was a range of evidence used by staff in conjunction with moderation of standards against the National 5 assessment criteria to make a professional judgement. We found that the school shared information about A’s health and support needs with staff and that there was reasonable proactive communication between the school and C. We found no evidence that A’s projected National 5 grade was based on incomplete or inaccurate information. We did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 202003904 as a PDF (24.35 KB) Updated: September 22, 2021

C complained on behalf of themselves and their neighbours. The council planned to redevelop the site of a former school, which is situated behind their properties. C raised a number of questions, concerns and objections on behalf of the local residents regarding plans for the site, maintenance of the area and the council's management of works being carried out on the site. Despite regular email and phone contact with the council, C complained that residents were not kept informed about work planned on the site or how their concerns would be addressed. C was also dissatisfied with the way their complaints about the situation were handled. We found that the council generally recognised the impact the development had on the residents and took steps to address the issues that they raised. Whilst internally, they acted reasonably with regard to management and maintenance of the site and could show the reasoning as to why certain decisions had been reached, we found that the council's communication with C was poor. On a number of occasions, C would ask specific questions about aspects of the development, but would receive very general responses. This led to confusion and mistrust on the residents' part. While we found the council's communication to be poor, we considered that the council reasonably managed, maintained and repaired the site. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. In relation to complaint handling, we were critical of the council's handling of C's complaint. Whilst they responded to C's various calls and emails in good time, we again found that specific points raised by C were not addressed directly. We also found that, although C had direct access to a number of key members of staff, this meant that C's concerns were not escalated through a formal complaints process and largely went unresolved as a result. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

C and their family applied to West Dunbartonshire Council for housing. The council assessed C’s application and awarded 115 points. They said that C qualified for a four-bedroom property. C said the council had not properly assessed their housing application. They said they required a five-bedroom property and the council had not properly assessed their medical needs. We found that the points allocated to C were in line with the council’s policy. The allocation of medical points was based on the assessment of an occupational therapist (a method of helping people who have been ill or injured to develop skills or get skills back by giving them certain activities to do - OT) and their assessed was reviewed by a second OT. We therefore did not uphold C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202001153 as a PDF (24.07 KB) Updated: December 16, 2020

Ms C complained about water damage to her property due to works carried out by the council as part of a Flood Prevention Scheme (FPS). Ms C said that the council failed to investigate the effect of the water damage and remedy these issues. Ms C also complained about vibrations from a nearby road, the quality of the council's communication with her about these issues and their response to her complaint. We found that the council did conduct a suitable investigation into the effect of water damage to Ms C's property. They investigated concerns about sediment in a burn and took action to remedy this. They continued to monitor both the water flow and level and conducted annual inspection of the burn. No further problems had been identified since the gabion mattresses (a cage or box filled with rocks or other material for use in landscaping, road building etc) were installed and we considered that the council's investigation and remedial action had been reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaints. In relation to the vibrations from the nearby road, we noted that the council repaired the road, but when Ms C raised continued concerns, no further inspection was conducted. We considered that the council should have attended the road and/or met with Ms C to establish any outstanding issues. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. In relation to complaints handling, we found that the council's response to Ms C's complaint was appropriate and responded to the issues raised within the timescales set out in their complaint handling procedure. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Finally, we found that the council did not respond to two letters Ms C sent raising her concerns. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Mr C complained about works carried out by the council to lower the footway at his property to allow for access to his driveway. The council carried out works to drop the kerb, but did not lower the heel kerb. Mr C complained that, as a result of the council not lowering the heel kerb, his car grounded on the footpath. Mr C believed that the council should have dropped the heel kerb as part of the works. The council said that they had carried out works to specification and that they considered the issue was the level of the Mr C's driveway which was not their responsibility. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us. We requested the council's documentation with respect to their inspection and agreed specification for the works. The council were not able to provide documentation relating to their inspection, even though they had visited the site on a number of occasions. We concluded that the council had failed to appropriately document their inspection and the specified works. The council confirmed during our investigation that they no longer offered to carry out such works and that, in an effort to conclude matters and in acknowledgement of the inconvenience, they agreed to waive their fee for the works carried out. We considered that the council should re-inspect Mr C's driveway, document their findings with respect to the works that should have been carried out at the time and, if further works were required, they should liaise with Mr C to arrange for these to be completed. We upheld the complaint.

Mrs C, the sole homeowner in a council owned block of homes, complained about a unreasonable delay in arranging for mutual repairs to the property and a failure to keep her reasonably informed regarding when repairs would be carried out. We took no further action as the complaint was resolved on the basis of a reduction in the cost of the repair work in acknowledgement of the complaint received. Related reading View Decision Report 201801027 as a PDF (23.49 KB) Updated: March 20, 2019

Ms C complained that the council failed to assess her application for discretionary rate relief (discounts on business rates bills) in line with their obligations, and within an appropriate timescale. Our investigation found that the council responded to Ms C within a reasonable timescale, and that the decision taken was reasonable. It is for the council to determine their policy in this area, and they applied their policy appropriately. We found that the fact that Ms C had not included the exact documentation indicated on the relevant application form meant the application needed a more detailed review, and this had taken time. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201606237 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to enforce planning conditions associated with a retrospective planning permission for an area of hard standing at a neighbouring property. The permission granted for this area limited the use of the hard standing to uses associated with the small holding to which it was attached and prevented the use of the area for commercial purposes. Mr C was unhappy that the area was being used for the parking of vehicles and the storage of items associated with a commercial business operated by his neighbour. He was also concerned that the council failed to take steps to have an unauthorised transport container removed from the site. In addition, he was unhappy with the time taken by the council to respond to his reports of unauthorised development. We found that Mr C was correct in his interpretation of the planning conditions, but noted that the breaches which were taking place were of a temporary nature, because they related to an additional temporary planning consent. The council had taken into account the use of the area by commercial vehicles and were taking steps to address this by assisting the neighbour to obtain a new site for his office and equipment storage. We also noted that the council had been advised that the container would be removed from the site. In these circumstances we were satisfied that the council's decision not to take formal enforcement action was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We were, however, critical of the council's delay in responding to Mr C's reports of breaches in planning control. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the condition of his property on taking up his tenancy. He maintained that the property had not been in a suitable standard to re-let and that the council had delayed in conducting repairs to bring the property up to a habitable standard and in removing rubbish. During our investigation the council provided evidence that Mr C had inspected the property prior to accepting the tenancy, agreeing that the property was in a re-let standard. The council also provided details of the repairs carried out prior to Mr C's tenancy to bring it up to the re-let standard. In addition they provided details of the repairs reported by Mr C and while the council accepted that not all the repairs met the target date for completion, their position remained that the repairs did not render the property uninhabitable. They also said that the work required would not have prevented Mr C moving into the property. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, the council had acknowledged and apologised for a delay in removing rubbish from the property and we therefore made a recommendation regarding this.

Mr C complained that he had twice reported faulty street lights to the council and that they had failed to repair the lights, as they were required to do. He also complained about the way in which the council dealt with his complaint. The council had acknowledged failings in their repairs process and subsequent communication and advised Mr C that these lights would be repaired. We found that the council's records of Mr C's initial reports and their subsequent actions were poor. We were unclear as to what action had been taken by the council as the evidence was limited. We also noted that the council had failed to address Mr C's subsequent complaints to them, to speak to Mr C to discuss his concerns, and to respond to his correspondence in line with their complaints process. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C complained to the council about the social work department's handling of his concerns regarding his mother. This complaint was considered by a Complaints Review Committee (CRC) and was partly upheld. However, Mr C was concerned that the CRC had not been properly conducted and he complained to us about this. He raised concerns that the CRC stopped him from making submissions or asking questions on occasion, which he said meant he had no reasonable opportunity to present his case. He also raised concerns that no minutes were taken at the CRC and there was no reasonable record of the discussion on which the CRC's decision was based. The council said Mr C had ample opportunity to make submissions and ask questions of witnesses. Although the council acknowledged that the chair of the committee curtailed some of Mr C's questions and submissions, they said this was because he was repeating information or raising points that were not relevant to the complaint. In relation to the records, the council provided a copy of the CRC minute, the decision letter and the handwritten notes from the CRC clerk. The council also noted that there was no requirement to keep a transcript or verbatim record of the CRC hearing. After investigating these issues, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found no evidence that Mr C had been inappropriately stopped from making submissions or questioning witnesses, and the CRC records showed Mr C had an opportunity to present his case, refer to documents and ask questions over several hours. In relation to the records, we accepted that there was no specific requirement to keep a verbatim account of the hearing, but we considered that the council should keep sufficient records of the evidence and arguments considered in order to explain the reasons for their decision. We found, on balance, that the council's records were reasonable. While the decision letter was brief, it did identify the points of complaint which were upheld and not

Mr C, a council tenant, complained about the repairs the council did to his home following water ingress. He was also unhappy that he was told he would have to pursue the council's contractor if he wanted to make a compensation claim stemming from those repairs, and also with the way that the council handled his complaint. Mr C had reported water ingress before and the council had arranged repairs as part of an upcoming maintenance project. He reported water ingress again around a year later, in January 2012, and the council attended promptly to lay sheeting in his loft. The evidence indicated that they did work to the slates on his roof in February 2012. However, in July 2012 another repair was needed which identified a problem with their contractor's workmanship during the historic maintenance project. In assessing whether the council had acted reasonably, we found that they had responded reasonably to Mr C's reports and we did not uphold his first complaint. However, as the council neither acknowledged nor responded to Mr C's complaint within the relevant timescales, we upheld his second complaint. In terms of Mr C being told to raise his compensation claim with the council's contractor, only a court can determine liability. Our role was limited to considering the council's administrative handling of the matter. The evidence indicated that the council investigated Mr C's claim and passed the relevant information to their claim handlers, whose advice was that the council were not legally liable. Although any compensation claim would still have had to be raised with their contractor, the council agreed a rent rebate and offered Mr C a discretionary payment for his inconvenience. We recognised that, as a council tenant, Mr C felt he should raise concerns with his landlord and we were critical that, on the basis of the paperwork available, there was no clear statement for tenants of the council's position regarding such claims (for example, an information l

Mr C, who is an advice worker, complained that the council gave his client (Mr A) misleading advice about the storage of his belongings during a homelessness application, and that they unreasonably delayed in responding to Mr A's requests for assistance. Mr A's property was being repossessed, and there was likely to be a period between him leaving that property and taking up a new tenancy. Mr A said that he had been told by the council that, if he were to become homeless during this period, the council could provide storage for his belongings. He was later told that the council's policy had changed and they could no longer provide storage. However, in Mr A's case, storage was not required as the council had secured an extension to the repossession of his property, meaning he could move directly to a new property. Although we recognise that the process of making a homelessness application was very stressful for Mr A, we were satisfied that the council did not mislead Mr A. We accept their reasoning that storage was not needed as they were able to negotiate an extension to the repossession of Mr A's property which allowed time for him to be offered a permanent housing arrangement. Mr C also complained that the council failed to communicate with Mr A following his referral from an NHS service to the council's customer and community services team. We noted the impact that Mr A said the delay in communication had on his existing poor health. The council had acknowledged the delay and apologised for it, so although we upheld the complaint, we did not make any recommendations. We were satisfied that the council had apologised and taken appropriate action to try to prevent this from happening again. Related reading View Decision Report 201406415 as a PDF (11.4 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C told us that other houses in a similar or better condition than her own were included by the council on a programme of works and were re-rendered and insulated. She complained that her home was not included in this programme of works and was not upgraded. She told us her home was non-standard construction and was very hard to heat. The council said the purpose of the improvement programme was to make sure that their housing stock met the Scottish Housing Quality Standard (SHQS). They instructed a surveyor to carry out a visual inspection of all housing stock so they could identify properties which might fail to meet the SHQS. The surveyor found that Ms C's property was not one of those which failed to meet the standard. It was not, therefore, included in the programme of works. When Ms C raised concerns about the outcome of the survey a member of the council's capital investment team, who were responsible for the upgrade programme, inspected Ms C's property again and reached the same conclusion, that the property needed a few repairs but did not fail the SHQS. Related reading View Decision Report 201402976 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lived in a council property between July 2011 and March 2014 during which time he suffered a number of incidences of water penetration which appeared to come from the property above. He said that, as a consequence, his personal property had been damaged and that the house was not wind and watertight. He wanted to be rehoused. He complained that it was not until February 2014, when the problem was confirmed to be a systemic one probably related to the installation of cavity wall insulation a number of years previously, that he was offered permanent rehousing. Our investigation showed that while there were a number of incidences of water penetration, on each occasion and within a reasonable time, the council had attended to complete remedial works. It was also shown that the problems at Mr C's house were not necessarily related to weather conditions and that the council had investigated potential areas of concern in an attempt to eliminate the problem. There were also difficulties with access, in particular to the neighbouring property where it was thought the problem was originating. A subsequent architect's report indicated that the cause of the problem was likely to be systemic and, therefore, Mr C was rehoused. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201306184 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that, when he bought a property to let, the council had unreasonably decided that he did not qualify for exemption of council tax for an empty dwelling. He said he had carried out substantial work, including replacing the kitchen and bathroom, rewiring and redecoration, which should have made the property eligible for the exemption for the duration of the upgrading work. The council investigated his complaints and found that, because the previous owner had received a discount for a second home on the property, the property did not qualify for exemption as an empty dwelling as it had not been continuously occupied for three months before he bought it. Our investigation considered his correspondence with the council, relevant legislation and amendments relating to council tax and empty dwellings, and the council's responses. We found that the council had taken appropriate actions in line with legislation and that their responses to his complaints explained the legislation and the changes relating to their decisions. Related reading View Decision Report 201402024 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council installed an unsuitable extractor fan in his house. He was concerned that it was designed to be left on 24 hours a day and that he was responsible for the running costs. When he switched the fan off, he found that there was a draught from the duct, and was unhappy that the fan did not have filters, which he believed should have been fitted when it was installed. We found that the fan was installed as part of a refurbishment programme for multi-storey buildings involving comprehensive recladding and insulation. Due to the techniques used to provide sealed 'air-tightness' and controlled ventilation, fans were installed to allow the building to breathe. The manufacturer's technical guidance showed that a filter was not required, given the way the fan was to be used, and that if it was used continuously as designed there would be no problem with draughts. Estimated running costs were extremely low and the council said Mr C would recover these through energy savings because of the insulation and other works carried out. We found this reasonable and did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201300373 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to the council about noise from a neighbour on several occasions. Early on in these complaints, officers twice verified that there was excess noise, and issued her neighbour with warning notices. Ms C continued to complain to the council about noise, and they told her they would take legal action against her neighbour. Ms C's concerns about noise continued, but she told us that she stopped complaining because she thought action was being taken. When nothing happened, Ms C made a formal complaint, and was told that there had been miscommunication within the council, and that, as there were no current complaints, no legal action would be taken. The council's antisocial behaviour procedures specified what action should be taken in relation to each noise complaint. Our investigation found that the council did not keep Ms C updated and did not maintain records appropriately. They also failed to offer mediation early in the process, as required by their procedures. Finally, we found that internal communication had failed, meaning that because there were no recent verified complaints they were not able to take legal action even though they had said they would.