spso local government complaints report 2012 13

SCOTTISH PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMANANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012–2013

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Learningfromcomplaints

Supportingpublic serviceimprovement

Improvingcomplaintshandling

This is one of a series of reports throughwhichwe are aiming to put keymessages, informationand analysis of complaints about individualsectors into the public domain.We anticipatethat Parliamentary committees, governmentdepartments, scrutiny bodies, regulators and localauthoritieswill find this an effectivemeans ofenhancing the learning fromourwork andidentifying issues arising from the complaintswe see. Equally, we hope it will prove useful tomembers of the public who seekmore informationabout the kinds of complaints that are escalatedto the SPSO and howwehandle them.

CONTENTS

Ombudsman’s Introduction 4

Casework 7

Sharing the Learning 13

Improving Complaints Standards 14

Policy and Engagement 16

Case Studies 19

Local Government CasesDetermined 2012/2013 23

It is an enormous personal pleasure to evidence the fulfilment of the visionand ambitions ofmyReview for the reformof theComplaintsHandlingSystem forPublic Bodies in Scotland. I strongly believe theSPSOhas put inplace a leadingworld class systemwhich helps ensure that public servicedelivery is to the highest level. TheOmbudsmanandhis teamshould becongratulated for a jobwell done. PROFESSOR LORNE CRERAR

The approach by theFit for PurposeComplaints SystemActionGroup canbe summarised in oneword: simplification. That objective has nowbeenachieved.Wenowhave standardised, simplified complaints handlingprocesses for each public service sector. TheSPSOhas built this strongand enduring foundation onwhich our public services need to continue toembedan ethoswhich sees genuine complaints as opportunities forlearning andwhich empowers complaints handlers to resolve asmany complaints as possible at thefirst level. DOUGLAS SINCLAIR

(L –R: JimMartin, LorneCrerar,DouglasSinclair)

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PAGE 5

It is appropriate thatmy inauguralsectoral report is about localgovernment. It is the sector about whichwe receive themost complaints (37%ofour total caseload in 2012/13) and,mostsignificantly for this reporting year, it isthe first sector inwhich a standardisedmodel complaints handling procedure(CHP)was implemented.

This radical innovationwas led by ourComplaints Standards Authority (CSA),a small teamwithin the SPSO that isworking to deliver the decision ofParliament that there should bestandardised complaints handlingprocedures across the public sector thatare simple, streamlined and accessible,and that deal with complaints as quicklyand effectively as possible. ThemodelCHP for the local government sectorwas published inMarch 2012with animplementation date of 1 April 2013. All32 councils in Scotland now operate thesame procedure, underpinned by theprinciples approved by the Parliament.

I was very pleased that the architectsof the new complaints landscape –Professor Lorne Crerar andDouglasSinclair – have given positive verdictson ourwork to bring about thisgroundbreaking new approach tocomplaints handling.

Changes to the deliveryof servicesThroughout the past year, I have beenkeen to ensure that SPSO is aswellprepared as possible for policy changesthatmay impact on ourwork. There aretwo areas of significant potential change– social work complaints processes andfurther integration of health and socialcare services.

We have outlined in our consultationresponses and elsewhere howwe seethese changes impacting on users ofpublic services, and there is a summaryof our policy engagement later in thisreport. An importantmessage is thatwhere changes are proposed, the serviceuser’s right to challenge decisions shouldbe considered in advance and complaintssystems embedded in policy changes atthe formulation stage. To truly put anindividual’s needs, for example thoseof a personwho needs a combination ofhealth and social care, at the heart of aprocessmeans considering how theywill be able to challenge decisions theydisagreewith or raise concerns aboutthe quality of care received.

OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION

It is this cultureofvaluingcomplaintscombinedwithprocesses thataresimpleandaccessible thatwill,in time, lead tothesignificantimprovements thatcouncils and thepublicwant tosee.

To truly put an individual’sneeds at the heart of aprocessmeans consideringhow theywill be able tochallenge decisions theydisagreewith or raiseconcerns about the qualityof care received.


Performancemonitoringand continuous improvementAs well as developing themodel complaintshandling procedures, the CSA has laidthe groundwork for future continuousimprovement. All councils are now requiredto publish information on their complaintshandling performance on an annual basisand publish a quarterly summary ofoutcomes, trends and actions taken.We have developed a set of performanceindicators against which all councils will berequired to report. This will provide richcomplaints data for the sector as a whole,providing consistency and transparencyon the numbers of complaints received,the areas of service they relate to andhow they have been handled. It will helpeach individual council to benchmarktheir complaints handling performanceagainst other councils and identify emergingtrends and areas for service improvement.

I appreciate that the requirement toimplement themodel complaints handlingprocedure coincided with increasing financialpressure on local authorities. I am gratefulfor the way authorities have risen to thechallenge of implementation and in particularfor the expertise, time and hard work put in bythemembers of the local authority complaintshandlers group that worked with the CSA tobring about these changes. I am confidentthat authorities and the public will reap thebenefits in years to come.

The CSA has carried out our statutory roleto promote good complaints handling in anumber of innovative ways, includingestablishing sectoral networks and across-sectoral online community. Itsinformative website carries guidance ongood complaints handling, and hosts anonline training centre. The hundreds of casestudies we have published on the SPSOwebsite provide a wealth of material to raiseawareness and support learning.

I urge local authorities to draw on these toolsand look forward to continuing to work withthem to enable them to demonstratemorefully to their service users the ways in whichthey value complaints and how they use themto drive improvement.

JimMartinOmbudsman

OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION


CASEWORK

Number of complaints receivedanddealtwithIn 2012/13we received 1,505 complaints aboutlocal government, representing a continuingtrend of a slight drop in complaints receivedabout this sector (down from1,527 in 2011/12and 1,604 in 2010/11). The local governmentcomplaints we receivedmade up 37%of our totalcaseload and it remains the sector about whichwe receivemost complaints (the next largest isthe health sector, which in 2012/13 accountedfor 30%of our caseload).

During the year, we dealt with 1,507 complaints,1%more than in 2011/12 (the number ofcomplaints received and dealt with differbecause some cases received at the end of2011/12were dealt with in 2012/13).

Whatwedowith complaintsAt the end of this report, there is a tablewiththe outcomes of all the local governmentcomplaints we dealt with. Below, we identifysome of the key points andwhat we do ateach stage of our process.

AdviceAll complaints and enquiries come first to ouradvice team. Their role is to provide information,signposting and support. Much of this work isconducted by telephone and they provide not onlyadvice about ourwork but also help people findadditional support. They canmake a decision ona complaint if it is clearly amatter that we arenot legally able to consider or it has come to ustoo early. We normally are only able to deal withcomplaints when they have completed the localauthority complaints process. If a complaintcomes to us too early (we call these prematurecomplaints) wewill let the person knowhowbesttomake the complaint to the local authority.Wecan also give advice about other organisationsthatmay be able to help, such as Citizens AdviceBureaux or advocacy groups, who can helppeople through the complaints process.

Premature complaintsThis year saw a small drop in the numberof premature complaints about the localgovernment sector, from52% to 50%.Comparedwith other sectors, however, this is ahigh rate (the overall rate is 40%) and in 2013/14we launched a project that aims to try toreduce the number of premature complaintsby drilling down inmore detail into why peoplecome to us before completing an organisation’scomplaints process.

There are twomain reasons for prematurecomplaints. The first is that the complainantdoes not have enough information about thecouncil’s complaints process and does notunderstand how to escalate their complaint.The second is that, despite the complainanthaving the correct information, their complainthas got stuck in the system. Through ourproject, wewant to providemore informationabout the premature complaints we receive,for example, by highlightingwhere theremaybe different numbers received about particulardepartments or services. This will help councilsfind any gaps in their signposting or flaws intheir process thatmay be causing prematurecomplaints.We recognise that therewill alwaysbe peoplewhowant to bypass the local process– our aim is to reduce the level of localgovernment premature complaints to the samekind of rate aswe see in other sectors, such as30% for health complaints.

All enquiries and the vastmajority of prematurecomplaints are dealt with by our advice team.In 2012/13, the teamhandled 21 enquiries aboutlocal authority services, and 1,051 complaints, ofwhich 704were premature. At the next stage inour process, where complaints receive furtherdetailed review, another 46 local authority caseswere found to be premature.

Assessing complaintsLast year, 492 local government complaintspassed from the advice stage to further, detailedreview. At this stage, we try wherever possibleto talk to the complainant tomake sureweunderstand their complaint andwhat outcometheywant.We aim to see if there is a resolutionthat would be agreeable and acceptable to allparties and last yearwe resolved 16 at this stage.

We also have to assesswhether there arereasonswe should not take the complaintfurther.We can only investigatewherewehave the legal power to do so. Our complaintsreviewers are helped in their work by being ableto call on the services of professional advisers.In the case of local government, we have threeplanning advisers, who provide technical advicein complaints about planningmatters, advisingwhether processes and procedures havebeen properly followed. The SPSO remainsresponsible for the decisionsmade on eachcomplaint andwe are careful to ensurewetest the advicewe receive and that it is of thehighest quality.

We know it is frustrating for complainants if wecan’t resolve a complaint or take it further, sowetry to take this decision as quickly aswe can.Last year, we decided at this stage that we couldnot take 249 cases further. In some instancesthis was because theywere premature, or out ofour jurisdiction. In others, the complainant didnot provide uswith enough information,withdrew the complaint, or wanted an outcomewe could not achieve for them.We provide abreakdown of the decisionswemade at thisstage at the end of this report.

Investigating complaintsAt the investigation stage, we decidewhetheror not the complaint should or should not beupheld.Whenwe investigate, we always issue awritten decision. This is an important record andsets out in detail what we have investigated andhow. The organisation and the complainant will

receive copies.We know that some localgovernment complaints are about difficultexperiences, for example those that involvesocial work issues or school bullying. In 2012/13,we beganmoving towards supplementing thewritten recordwith a telephone discussionwiththe peoplewho hadmade the complaints. Thishas proved successful and is now part of ourregular and increased use of direct contact withcomplainants.

Thewritten recordwill be in one of two formats.Inmost casewe issue decisions by letter.This letter remains private between ourselvesand the parties. In order to ensure learning isshared, we publicly report a summary of thedecision to Parliament. In 2012/13we issueddecisions by letter in 237 local government casesand a further six complaints went to our fulldetailed report stage because they satisfied ourpublic interest criteria.

Our public interest criteria can include:

> significant personal injustice

> systemic failure

> significant failures in the local complaintsprocedure

> precedent and test cases

RecommendationsWherewe find that something has gonewrong,wewill uphold the complaint andwe usuallymake recommendations for redress andimprovement. Across the local governmentsector, wemade 191 recommendations in2012/13. The case studies at the end of thisreport provide examples of the kinds ofrecommendationswemake. There aremanymore available in the cases published on ourwebsite.We track every recommendation toensure that the organisation implements itwithin a specified timescale and providessuitable evidence to show that they have doneso effectively.


CASEWORK

> Wereceived1,505complaints and dealtwith1,507complaints

> The rate of complaints coming to us too early dropped from52% to

50%comparedwith last year – but it is still high comparedwith

other sectors (the overall rate is 40%)

> The rate of upheld complaintswas 47%up from32% last yearand above the overall rate of 46%

> Peoplewho received advice, support and signposting:1,036

> Number of cases decided following detailed consideration

pre-investigation:249

> Complaints fully investigated243 with 228* publicly reportedtoParliament

> Wemade191recommendations for redress and improvement

* Wepublicly report the decisions aminimumof sixweeks after sending the decision letter.In a small number of caseswedonot put information in the public domain, usually to preventthe possibility of someonebeing identified.

Key figures in local government complaints 2012/13


CASEWORK


What do people complain about?The top five areas complained about remainthe same as previous years, with little changefurther down the table either. While the numbersare small, themost notable changes were inbuilding control and roads and transportwhere complaints dropped by 38% and 24%respectively and in environmental health andcleansing, where complaints rose by 50%.

Top areas of local governmentcomplaints received 2012/13

Housing 361

Planning 197

Social work 183

Finance 85

Education 76

Roads and transport 73

Environmental health and cleansing 60

Legal and administration 48

Land and property 28

Building control 26

The number of complaints received aboutplanning fell (by 6%), although the number ofupheld complaints about planning rose (weprovidemore detail about this in the planningsection later). Other subjects of complaint thatsaw an increase (albeit onmuch lower numbersof complaints) were finance, which saw a16% increase and environmental health, asmentioned above.

Within these broad areas of complaint, wereceivedmost complaints about the subject ofpolicy and administration. This is an extremelybroad category, usually covering the way inwhich a local authority has handled an issue.Complaints received under this category variedfrom concerns about a local authority’s

monitoring of safety policies in a workingharbour to those of a group of home-ownerswho complained that the council failed toproperly handle issues relating to the conditionsattached to planning consent granted beforetheir homes were built. We also receivedcomplaints about how rights of way wereadministered, and about how a council wentabout changing a system they had fornumbering flats.

Some of the case studies at the end of thisreport are examples of policy and administrationcomplaints, including one where a council failedto provide accurate information when a womanwanted to build a driveway into her property.

Top subjects of local governmentcomplaints received 2012/13

Policy/administration 211

Housing repairs andmaintenance 130

Planning – handling of application(complaints by opponents) 98

Complaints handling, includingsocial work complaints procedures 83

Council tax 75

Neighbour disputes and anti-socialbehaviour 63

Housing applications, allocations,transfers and exchanges 42

Local housing allowance andcouncil tax benefit 34

Parking 33

Social work – child servicesand family support 31

CASEWORK


Issues in local government complaintsHousing issues comprise five of the other top tensubjects of complaint. Housing is the subject of aseparate report, but it is worth noting that therewas a 6% increase in the number of complaintsreceived about local government inwhich housingwas themain subject of the complaint. One of ourcase study examples is about a council tenantwhowas unhappy about theway the councilhandled repairs to her property, which she had tovacatewhile theywere carried out, and that wasnot left in the state she had expected. It is alsoworth pointing out that evenwhere a localauthority have not retained their housing stock,theymay still receive complaints related tohousing issues, such as those about anti-socialbehaviour, or housing-related benefits.

Looking ahead, we anticipate a rise in complaintsrelated to changes resulting from cuts in localauthority budgets. These are already generatingcomplaints, and recent examples include councilsdeciding not tomaintain roads that they havepreviouslymaintained as a gesture of goodwill,council house improvement schemes beingscaled back, significant increases in burial costs,and cuts in library opening hours.

Complaints handlingWe received 83 complaints that were directlyabout complaints handling. In addition to this, inmore than half of the cases inwhichwe upheld orpartly upheld a complaint, the upheld aspect

included the council’s handling of the originalcomplaint. These failingswere in all areas ofcouncil services, and ranged from failure to replyto a letter or to respond to a complaint, or delaysin completing the response, to seriousshortcomings in how the social work complaintsprocedurewas used. Inmany cases, complaintshandlingwas the only element that we upheld,and the authority had done nothingwrong interms of themain issue complained about.

For example, in council tax cases, five out of sixcomplaints were found to involve poor complaintshandling. In one example of this, a womancomplained about a council taking recovery actionagainst her for unpaid council tax.We did notuphold that complaint, becausewe found that hercouncil tax account was in arrears and she did notmake reasonable attempts to contact the counciltomake payment arrangements. However, weupheld her complaints that the council did notrespond to emails and about the quality of theircomplaint response (case 201200138).

In another area – recreation and leisurecomplaints – all four cases that we upheld had acomplaints handling element. Local authoritiesshould look carefully at all these areas andensure that staff understand the need to handlecomplaints according to the relevant complaintsprocedure, and that theymust not lose sight ofthe handling of the complaint while dealingwiththe issue complained about.

CASEWORK

To read our decisions or search by subject, authority or case reference number,visitwww.spso.org.uk/our-findings

www.spso.org.uk/our-findings


CASEWORK

PlanningThe subjects of complaint that saw the greatestrise in upheld complaints were policy andadministration (mainly in the areas of planningand social work) and the handling of planningapplications. Planning is the second highestsubject of complaints received about localauthorities, and saw a notable increase in thenumber of upheld complaints (froma total of 16in 2011/12 to 38 last year). This is of particularinterest becausewe saw a small drop in theoverall number of planning complaints thatreached us during the year (from210 in 2011/12to 197 last year).

Of the planning caseswherewe upheld either allor part of a complaint, we found that in well overhalf (24) poor correspondence or complaintshandlingwas an issue. Failure to follow theplanning process appropriately featured in 16cases, related to issues such as the accuracyof information ormeasurements onwebsites andin reports, leading to the complainantquestioning the decision. In five caseswe upheldcomplaints about failure to properly enforceplanning conditions or to deal with a breach ofplanning permission and in threewe found thata council failed to notify neighbours aboutproposed development. (A number of the casesfeaturedmultiple failures, usually a combinationof poor complaints handling and the planningprocess.)We also upheld caseswhereenforcement of planning conditionswas an issue.This area is one of frustration for complainants,whomost often have a concern that a developeris apparently flouting a condition laid downwhenplanning permissionwas granted.

Of the six detailed local government investigationreports, fourwere about planning issues –failure to ensure that a developer compliedwith planning consent, or to enforce planningconditions (cases 201103415, 201101316); failureto ensure that a developer provided an adequatesource of water for a newhousing estate (case201102194) and about theway a council decidedto identify a particular location for development(case 201003487).

SocialworkIn this subject, ten out of twelve upheldcomplaints related to orwere directly aboutcomplaints handling. This high percentagereflects the fact that the complaints themselvesmainly related to issues about howmatterswerehandled through the statutory social workcomplaints process.We have founddiscrepancies between councils about whotheywill permit to take a complaint throughthis process – one case study in this reportdemonstrates this (case 201104029). Othercases related to a failure to direct the individualto the normal complaints processwhen a councilsaid a complaint was not appropriate to the socialwork process, and therewere two about a delayin convening a complaints review committee.Two cases involved concerns that a complaintsreview committee did not look at issues that weconsidered they should have looked at (forexample see case study 201101997).


SHARING THE LEARNING

Publishing reportsEachmonth, we publish reports of asmanycases aswe can and lay thembefore Parliament.In 2012/13we published 228 decisions about thelocal government sector,making thempubliclyavailable to raise awareness and to supportlearningwithin and across sectors. In doing this,we are careful to protect the identity of thepersonwho complained and the personabout whom the complaint wasmade. Oftencomplaints are brought to us by familymembers.There is a very small number of caseswhereeven publishing anonymously would identifyan individual, or where for other reasons such asa person’s vulnerability, it would be inappropriateto publish. In these rare circumstanceswewillexclude a case frompublication.

The bulk of the reports are the summary reportsof decision letters. These detail the complaint,our decision andwhether recommendationsweremade.We also publish eachmonth somefull investigation reports (six about the localgovernment sector in 2012/13) where it is in thepublic interest that all the detail is in the publicdomain. All the reports are searchable on ourwebsite by organisation, date and outcomeand they provide awealth of information forcomplainants and organisations. We promotelearning from the reports through theOmbudsman’smonthly e-newsletterwhich highlights themes and issues fromourcasework. It is sent to 1,800 recipients, includingMSPs, scrutiny bodies, service providers,advocacy agencies and themedia.

Annual lettersEach year, as an additional tool for learning andimprovement, we send each council their ownindividual statistics to consider. We publishthese annual letters on ourwebsite.

Workingwith othersAswell as publishing reports, we also havememoranda of understanding in placewith keyregulator, inspectorate and scrutiny bodiessuch as the Standards Commission for Scotland,the Scottish Social Services Council and theScottishHousing Regulator to help them to usecomplaints as part of their work.While our roleis to seek redress for people at an individuallevel, if an investigation points to the possibility ofa systemic issue, we can and domake broaderrecommendations aswell as publicly alert theappropriate organisation to look into thematter.There can be insight and learning from thedifferent approaches of organisationswithdifferent roles and it is essential that we all shareinformation and concerns, within the legal limitsunderwhichwe operate.

Our arrangementswith professional bodies, regulators and others are set out in a series ofprotocols andmemoranda of understanding, which are published on ourwebsite athttp://www.spso.org.uk/freedom-information/spso-publications-list/about-spso


IMPROVING COMPLAINTS STANDARDS

Model complaints handling proceduresAswe have highlighted earlier, 2012/13wasa significant year inmoving towards our visionof a streamlined complaints handling systemacross the public sector, with the localgovernment and housing sectors leadingtheway. Our Complaints Standards Authority(CSA) published themodel complaintshandling procedure (model CHP) for localauthorities inMarch 2012 and supported theseorganisations in implementing theirmodelCHPs throughout 2012/13. Themodel CHPis now operating across all council servicesin the 32 local authorities (with the exceptionof services subject to pre-existing legislativeguidance and directions, such as social work).This is a significant achievement, whichwasrealised through a partnership approach andthe significant efforts of local authorities.

Process and procedure have been the keyfocus, with standardised stages, timescales,recording and reporting and clarity aroundroles and responsibilities. However, werecognise that process and procedure areonly part of a successful complaints system.The key to a robust and effective approach tocomplaints handling – one that truly valuesand uses complaints to inform serviceimprovement – is in the culture of theorganisation. The CSAmessage in this regardhas been consistent – the need to build aculturewhere all staff value andwelcomecomplaints, with frontline resolution as closeto the point of service delivery as possible, andorganisational learning fromall complaintsdriving and informing service improvements.A performance culture should also drivecomplaints handlingwith a key set of commonindicators developed to assess andmonitorcomplaints handling performance and allowfor benchmarking of consistent information.Ourworkwith local governmentwill continueto focus on these areas.

Complaints handlers networkIn 2012/13we successfully established the localauthority complaints handlers network, whichmet for the first time in September 2012 andtwice after this in 2012/13. The network is led bythe sector for the sector and its aims are to:

> sharebest practice in complaints handling

> share learning fromcomplaints

> provideabenchmarking forum

> providea voice for the sector oncomplaints handling

The network discussed shared experiencesof implementing themodel CHP, commonsolutions to the challenges arising from thisand areas of best practice inwhat they do.Future plans for the network include furtherdeveloping the approach to benchmarkingperformance, developing amethodology to allowcomparison of costs and volumes, helping tofurther develop SPSO training/e-learningcourses and producing a best practice ‘Learningfrom complaints’ guide.Wewill also use thenetwork to discuss specific issues anddevelopments in complaints handling, includingthe approach to integrating complaintsprocedures as part of the forthcomingintegration of health and social care.

Werecognise that process andprocedure are only part of a successfulcomplaints system. The key to arobust and effective approach tocomplaints handling – one that trulyvalues anduses complaints to informservice improvement – is in theculture of the organisation.


Wehavewelcomed the positive response to theestablishment of the network and the input fromallmembers. Our particular thanks go toNorthLanarkshire Council who took up the role ofchair of the network in the crucial early periodof operation, including the administration andfacilitation of the regularmeetings, andwhoseefforts have seen the networkmembership growto 25 local authorities.Wewill continue toengagewith the network as our key partner incomplaints handling for the local governmentsector.

Performance indicatorsWith the network, we developed detailedperformance indicators for the sector, basedon those previously outlined in themodelCHPGuide to Implementation. Local authoritieswill be required to report against theseindicators from2013/14, and theywill becomparable against other public serviceproviders. These indicatorswill help usmovetowards a greater consistency of reporting oncomplaints across the sectors and provide anexcellent basis for developing benchmarkingarrangements for comparing how the varioussectors are performing in relation to theircomplaints handling.

TrainingDuring the yearwe launched a numberof e-learning courses, including onedeveloped specifically for local authority staff.The eight shortmodules are designed tosupport staff awareness of the frontlineresolution stage of themodel CHP, and goodpractice in complaints handling in general. Themodules can be accessed through the trainingcentre of our Valuing Complaints website.

Since the launch, over 1,500 local authority staffhave registered for e-learning and six localauthorities are running themodules directlyfrom their own learningmanagement system sothat they can track participation and completion,with somemaking it compulsory for all existingand new staff. A number of councils havedeveloped an internal training package usingthe e-learningmaterials as part of a blendedlearning package.

During 2012/13 our training teamprovided 21direct delivery courses to staff in ten differentlocal authorities. Two courses looked at frontlineresolutionwith the remainder focusing oncomplaints investigation skills.

IMPROVING COMPLAINTS STANDARDS

Formore about the CSA, visitwww.valuingcomplaints.org.uk and tolearn about our training activities, visitwww.spsotraining.org.uk

www.spsotraining.org.uk

www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk


POLICY AND ENGAGEMENT

ConsultationsThe complaints that people bring us provide avaluable source of information about the directexperiences of those using council services.Aswe have said earlier, we put asmuch ofthis as possible in the public domain and userecommendations to try to prevent the sameproblemhappening again.We also use ourknowledge of complaints systems and people’sexperience of such systemswhenwe respondto inquiries and consultations.

Sometimes, we are called to give direct evidence.Each year, the Ombudsman gives evidence to theLocal Government andRegeneration Committeein connectionwith our annual report.We alsoresponded to a number of consultationswherethe subjectmatter had a direct impact on orrelevance to ourwork.

SPSO local government-related consultationresponses2012/13

15 Aug 2012 ScottishHousingRegulator's consultationon Scottish SocialHousing Charter indicators

11 Sept 2012 Scottish Governmentconsultation on the integrationof adult healthand social carein Scotland

25 Sept 2012 Scottish Governmentconsultation on the Childrenand Young People Bill

27 Sept 2012 MargaretMitchell MSP’sconsultation on a proposedApologies Bill

16 Jan 2013 Briefing for Local GovernmentandRegeneration Committee

23 Jan 2013 Oral evidence to LocalGovernment andRegenerationCommittee

We post all evidence sessions and consultation responses on ourwebsite at:www.spso.org.uk/media-centre/inquiries-and-consultations

Integration of health and social careWewant to highlight in this report a repeatedtheme in our responses. This is the difficultycurrently caused by a number of incompatibleand overlapping complaints processes in thefields of health and social care. This problemwillbecome critical as, while themove to integratehealth and social care is going ahead, complaintsprocesses are being left behind and increasinglyreflect a style of provision that no longer exists.

To give a practical example, let us consider anolder personwho has complex needs but whocan still remain at homewith the rightmix of

support. A number of bodieswill be involved:the local authority has responsibility forassessing needs, a registered care servicemay provide support and direct assistance andthe individualmay also requireNHS care andsupport. Organisations already do their best towork together and co-ordinate their efforts andthemove to further integration aims tomakethese processes smoother andmore effective.However, what happens if that person isunhappy? At present, and if there are nolegislative changes in the near future, thepositionwill look like this:

continued>


> Complaints about NHS services are governedby the Patient Rights Act 2011 and secondarylegislation. The personwill have a number ofoptions about how to raise concerns and iftheywish to complain therewill be a simple,single investigationwith a responsewithin 20working days and then the right to bring thecomplaint to the SPSO. At that point, ifrelevant, wewill be able to directly considerprofessional judgment becausewe can lookat the clinical decisionsmade byNHS staff.

> Complaints about a registered care serviceare governed by the Public Services Reform(Scotland) Act 2010. The person does notneed to complain to the organisation first butis encouraged to do so as thismay resolve theproblem. Complaints aremade to the CareInspectorate and theywill assess thecomplaint against the Care Standards.If the person is unhappywith thework of theCare Inspectorate, they can complain to theSPSO but wewill only look at thework of theCare Inspectorate and not the registeredcare service.

> Complaints about local authority social workassessments are governed by the SocialWork (Scotland) Act 1968 andDirectionsissued in 1996. This is amuch longer andmore complex process than either of thefirst two and involves complaining to aquasi-independent complaints reviewcommittee (CRC). The CRC can look atprofessional judgment. If the person isunhappywith the CRC they can complain tous.We can comment onmaladministrationbut professional judgment is amatter ofdiscretion and, outside of health complaints,is excluded fromour jurisdiction.

There are, therefore, three different complaintssystemswith three different standards forjudging complaints. This is clearly not asatisfactory position andwill becomemorecomplexwhenwe are having towork out whichpart of an integrated service needs to be putthroughwhich complaints process because,for example, ultimately something is still a localauthority responsibility even if it is being carriedout byNHS staff.

We have suggested that a possibleway forward(one that we thinkwould requireminimallegislative intervention) would be for the socialwork and health complaints procedures to bealigned. This wouldmean that when complaintscome to uswe could also look at professionaljudgment in a social work context. There ismoredetail about this below.We have also suggestedthat we and the Care Inspectorate should begiven the flexibility to work together on certaincomplaints.

SocialworkUnder the current social work complaintsprocess, the final step before a complaint canbe brought to our office is to take the complaintto a complaints review committee (CRC).This is a local authority committee but one thatinvolves independentmembership and the abilitytomake recommendations to change decisions.Such committees can review the judgement ofprofessionals and this is an important protectionfor individuals, but our experience is that accessto CRCs can be patchy, andmay depend onwhere the complainant lives.We also seesignificant variation in how local authoritiesinterpret the Directions. For example asmentioned on page 12, in the complaints we see,we find they can have different views about whocan complain andwhat they can complain about.


continued>


It is worth pointing out that we are not generallyable to look into the subject matter of suchcomplaints, merely the process throughwhich the complainant went in pursuing theircomplaint. As we have highlighted earlier,this is because we cannot directly review thediscretionary decisions that are the professionaljudgment of social workers.

The social work complaints procedure,therefore, is an area wheremost stakeholdersagree that reform is needed. During 2012/13the process was under review by the ScottishGovernment, who published a report of theirconsultation in August 2012. They then set up aworking group to look at this inmore detail. Wehave participated in this with other interestedparties, including the Care Inspectorate, theConvention of Scottish Local Authorities(COSLA), the Association of Directors ofSocial Work and a number of third sectororganisations, including Capability Scotland.

It is not yet clear what the final shape of socialwork complaints handling will be in future.Although no final decision has beenmade, theGovernment has stated its preferred option,which includes adopting the ComplaintsStandards Authority model process for internalhandling of complaints (with some flexibilityaround timescales) and the SPSO taking on therole of CRCs, with a remit to lookmore closelyat the decisionsmade in social work serviceprovision. This is amodel we support. A finalproposal will be agreed in the coming year.Whatever happens, it is likely that the way inwhich we handle social work complaints infuture will be different, and in fact maymeanwe can give them a different level of scrutinyfrom that which we can provide at themoment.In his evidence to the Local Government andRegeneration Committee in January 2013,the Ombudsman pointed out that ‘any changeto the current systemwill have an impact oncomplaints numbers and the expertiserequired within the SPSO’.

It is important to note that, until any changes aremade, the current process remains in force andlocal authorities need to ensure that access tothis system ismaintained. They also need to

ensure that they interpret the Directionscarefully bearing inmind that the ability toquestion decisions is an important safeguardfor the public.

ScottishWelfare FundIn April 2013 Scottish local authorities tookon a new role, administering a replacement forcommunity care grants and crisis loans, knownas the ScottishWelfare Fund.When thishappened, the fund automatically camewithinthe remit of the SPSO. In preparation for this weprepared a leaflet for advisers and others aboutour new role. The leaflet explained that our roleis different from the Independent Review of theSocial Fund (IRS), the previous bodywhichreviewed decisionsmade about grants and loans,whichwas abolished by theUK government. Thisis because our legislationmeans that, unlike theIRS, we cannot normally look at whether adecision is correct. Our leaflet explains that thereare two local authority processes that can be usedto raise concerns about the fund. The reviewprocess allows the local authority to reconsiderthe decision. The complaints process dealswithcustomer service complaints and some issuesthat cannot be raised through the review process.The Scottish Government has issued detailedguidance and documentation about the fund,which can be found on their website. It is not yetclear howmany complaints we are likely toreceive about the fund and its administration,although figures so far have been low.Wewillreflect on this again at the end of the coming year.

The Scottish Government hasmade it clear thatthe current arrangementswill be in place for aninterim period of two years.We understand thatlocal authorities, throughCOSLA, have agreed totake on the role of administering the ScottishWelfare Fund on an ongoing basis but the futurereview arrangements to be put in place are lessclear at this stage. The Scottish Governmentwillshortly undertake a consultation on future optionsand one of those is likely to be to provide theSPSOwith a remit to undertake second tierreview of the decisionsmade. This is, therefore,an areawewill continue tomonitor closely.


For SPSO leaflets, visitwww.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets

www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets


CASE STUDIES

This complaint was about an application for priority housing. Aman sent the council amedicalassessment form, explaining that his property was unsuitable as his daughter had complexhealth needs. He was awarded ‘seriousmedical need’ priority, but appealed this and wasawarded ‘urgentmedical need’ priority, although not until more than fourmonths after heappealed. We found that it took far too long to deal with that appeal. We also found that thecouncil had not given clear, detailed reasons for initially only awarding ‘seriousmedical need’,and had not backdated the ‘urgentmedical need’ award to the correct date. The councilapologised for the delay, reviewed their medical assessment process andmet with theirmedical adviser to ensure that the outcome ofmedical assessments is in future properlyexplained to applicants. They also backdated the ‘urgentmedical need’ award to the date theoriginal application was submitted. As the council took appropriate action to resolve theseproblems, we did not find it necessary tomake any recommendations.

Delay in assessing an appeal about priority housing need Case 201100730Positive action taken by organisation

This is a selection of case studies from investigationswe published about local authorities in2012/13. Some illustrate the double injustice that can happenwhen a poorly delivered service iscompounded by poor complaints handling. Other case studies are included to show some of thepositive actions that organisations take in response to complaints. To share this good practice, thereports on ourwebsite normally highlightwhere an organisation has taken such action. Still othercase studies summarised here are included as examples ofwhere organisations have delivered aservice and investigated a complaint properly.

This complaint arose after an elderlymanwas diagnosedwith dementia. His family knew thathewould eventually need residential care, and that at that point the council would assess hisfinances to decidewhat he should pay towards care costs. The family decided to temporarilytransfer somemoney to his wife, so that she could benefit from the interest until then. She,however, unexpectedlymoved into residential care herself. Before shewas financially assessed,the familymoved themoney back into her husband’s account. On the financial assessmentforms, they explainedwhat they had done, andwhy.When the social work department lookedat this, they decided that themoney in fact belonged to theman’swife, and she should beconsidered as still having it. Thismeant that she had to pay themajority of her care costs.A social work complaints review committee (CRC) looked at this, but said they could notcomment on the social work department’s decision, whichwas amatter of professionaljudgement.We took the view, however, that the CRC should have looked at it, and that in notdoing so they had denied the family the opportunity to challenge the original decision.

RecommendationsThe council apologise to the family and arrange for the financial assessment to beindependently reviewed; ensure they tell those having their case reviewed by a CRC of theextent of the CRC's remit and powers; and ensure that CRCmembers have appropriatetraining and access to expert advice to deal with all matters presented to them.

Local government: complaints review committee – failure to reviewCase 201101997


CASE STUDIES

In this case, the owner of a property had asked for local housing allowance (formerly known ashousing benefit) to be paid directly to their letting agent rather than to the tenant. This wasbecause the tenant was behind in paying the rent. The council, however, continued to have theallowance paid to the tenant, who then left owing the ownermoney.We found that although thecouncil acted correctly at first, they later delayed in taking action to have the letting agents paiddirect when it became appropriate to do so, and had not respondedwhen asked about this.Therewas also evidence that the council did notmeet their customer care standards in handlingthe subsequent complaint.

RecommendationsThe council pay the owner the amount that should have been paid to the letting agent; and takesteps to ensure that their procedures, and notices issued to landlords about appeal procedures,comply with the housing benefit regulations and the Department ofWorks and Pensions' goodpractice guidance.

Local housing allowance – paid to tenant rather than letting agentCase 201004828

This complaint was about the care of a brother and sister, whowere adults with learningdifficulties. After theirmother died in hospital, theywere left without direct support. The councilhad arranged for a care provider to provide some helpwhile theirmotherwas in hospital. Aftershe died, the council reassessed the brother and sister as needing additional helpwith personalcare,managing finances, carrying out domestic tasks, daily living skills and sleepover care. Thecouncil hadwelfare guardianship for them, and their aunt had financial guardianship. Shewas,however, unhappywith the care provider in a number of respects. This included failing to renewthe home insurance policy, whichmeant that after a leak, her niece and nephewhad to payhundreds of pounds for repairs. She complained to the council but they told her she could not usethe social work complaints process. Shewent to the Care Inspectoratewho found that the careproviderwas not registered to provide housing support services, upheld the complaint andcriticised the provider on a number ofmatters. The council immediately arranged for a newcare provider.

Our investigation upheld the complaint and found that section 99 of the Public Services Reform(Scotland) Act 2010 says councilsmust ensure that service providers are appropriately registered.Wewelcomed the fact that the council had taken steps to ensure this would not happen again.This included identifying similarly affected individuals, and carrying out an exercise to ensure theyknowwhich care providers are registered to provide particular levels of service. However, weconsidered that the council should have taken further action to remedy the specific injustices inthis case.We also disagreedwith their view that, because the aunt was not herself a service user,she could not take this up through the statutory social work complaints process.

RecommendationsThe council apologise for failing to ensure that the care providerwas appropriately registered;investigate the care provider's actions in relation to the renewal of home insurancewith a view toestablishing and remedying any financial losses suffered; and review their practice in relation totaking social work complaints about a social work service provided to another person.

Unregistered care provider Case 201104029


CASE STUDIES

A council carried out repairs to a tenant’s home. Thework neededwas extensive, and thewoman, who had health problems, had tomove out. The council told her that her homewouldbe returned to the same condition as it was before shemoved out. She complained because shewas unhappy at the state inwhich the property was returned to her.While shewas out of herhome she and her partnerwere also contacted several times for access to it, although she hadgiven the council keys. She also found that her homewas left insecure.We found evidence thattherewere problemswith the different trades accessing the property, and upheld her complaintabout the state of the property.We also found that the council had not compensated her for amissed appointment nor had they repainted her bedroomas they had said in their response toher complaint.

RecommendationsThe council apologise to their tenant for the problems; ensure her bedroom is repainted; andprovide us with evidence that she has been reimbursed formissed appointments.

Housing repairs Case 201103774

Aman complained that the council charged him for a visit. His annual home gasmaintenancecheck had been due, but he hadmissed a first appointment. (Theman said hewas at home on thefirst date but the contractor had not arrived.) He said he received nothingmore from the counciluntil a contractor’s cardwas put through his door. The council thenwent there for a third time.Theywere granted access, but ‘capped’ the gas supply and charged theman an administrative fee.We found evidence that when contractors could not gain access the council had sent three lettersand left two cards at the house. They had the correct address details, had given appropriate noticeon each occasion, and had followed their policy.We found that in the circumstances theywereentitled to charge him the administration fee and did not uphold the complaint.

Gas contractor access fee Case 201203652

A council tenant complained about changes to the lighting in the close that he shareswith hisneighbour. He said that, historically, lightingwas provided fromdusk to dawn, but that this servicewaswithdrawn.

Our investigation found that the council were not obliged to provide lighting in the close. Theoriginal light was connected to the neighbour's electricity supply and, although therewas anunderstanding that the light would be left on overnight, this was ultimately at her discretion.Whena new tenantmoved into that property she decided not to use the light. Although the council werenot required to light the close, we found that they had provided themanwith a second light, overwhich he had sole control.Wewere satisfied that this was an appropriate gesture and that theyhad suggested other steps that he could take to increase the level of lighting available.

Stair lighting Case 201200538Positive action taken by organisation


CASE STUDIES

Whenawomanwanted to build a driveway into her property, she asked the council for advice.They told her that planning permissionwas not needed. They explainedwhen it would be neededandwho to contact if shewanted to reduce the height of the kerb. Thewomanbuilt the driveway,based on that advice.More than two and a half years later the council contacted her to say that theyowned a piece of land at the edge of the road,which she had used in creating the driveway. Theywanted her to either buy it or re-instate it.We found that the council had never explained to her thatthey had in fact responded to her in their role as planning authority. They should also have explainedthat she needed to get their consent in an additional role, as the owner of the piece of land.

RecommendationsThe council apologise to the woman and consider waiving their administration charges for anysale of the land to her.

Planning permission Case 201104974

This complaint was about a council’s refusal to refund council tax. A church owned a property, andthe tenant left, owing council tax. The church officers asked the council to forward any relevantcorrespondence to a particular person. The council then sent that person a demand notice for theunpaid council tax, wrongly naming him as the debtor and threatening recovery action. To avoid theperson being at risk of such action, the church officers decided to pay the council tax, believing thatwhen they explained the position to the council, this would be refunded. The council, however,refused to do so, even though they admitted that the person towhom they had sent the demandwasnot liable. They did not have a policy about refundingmoney froma council tax account.We foundthat the council werewrong to keepmoney that had been paid because of their error and to namethe person on the demand notice.We also found that the council handled the complaint poorly.

RecommendationsThe councilmake a payment to the church in lieu of themonies paid to the council tax account;consider developing an appropriate policy/procedure for refunding council tax; and considerreviewing how they respond to such complaints in future.

Council tax refund Case 201104971

Aman told us that the council had not dealt with a flooding issue, after concrete slabswere laid in thenext garden.When it rained,water ran off the slabs into his owngarden. This also carriedwith it dogexcrement, which the neighbour had not picked up as they should have done.We found that thecouncil had investigated this and, as they had already planned to do somebuildingwork on theproperty next door, they had arranged to re-lay the slabswith drainage at the same time. Althoughtherewas somedelay in doing this, we felt that it was a reasonable solution to theflooding. Howeverwe found that they had not acted quickly enough on the dog fouling issue. Council staff had been toldtomonitor the situation, clear away any excrement and charge the next door tenants for doing so.There had been delay in taking action on this and rather than clearing it up, staff had simply askedthe tenant to remove it, which had led to amore prolonged problem.

RecommendationsThe council apologise for the delay in dealingwith the dog fouling; and consider reviewing theirapproach tomonitoring and acting on such complaints at their properties.

Neighbour issues – flooding and dog fouling Case 201101580


Casetype

Stage

Outcome

Enqu

iryA

dvic

e&

Sig

npos

ting

Enqu

iry0

00

20

20

70

11

11

02

20

11

21

Total

00

02

02

07

01

11

10

22

01

121

TotalEnq

uiries

00

02

02

07

01

11

10

22

01

121

Com

plai

ntA

dvic

eM

atte

rout

ofju

risdi

ctio

n(d

iscr

etio

nary

)0

10

11

30

30

11

01

01

11

40

19

Mat

tero

utof

juris

dict

ion

(non

-dis

cret

iona

ry)

01

03

10

02

12

13

30

05

018

040

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

21

09

513

049

06

11

265

821

191

023

9

Out

com

eno

tach

ieva

ble

01

01

01

05

10

00

00

00

04

013

Pre

mat

ure

93

132

3048

115

98

177

142

1032

112

318

90

704

Total

117

146

3765

1218

1026

105

7215

41139

5306

01,015

Early

Res

olut

ion

1M

atte

rout

ofju

risdi

ctio

n(d

iscr

etio

nary

)0

10

20

00

144

20

010

00

70

00

40

Mat

tero

utof

juris

dict

ion

(non

-dis

cret

iona

ry)

31

02

85

032

48

02

160

98

01

099

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

10

01

13

013

21

00

30

19

03

038

Out

com

eno

tach

ieva

ble

20

00

12

14

05

00

40

25

00

026

Pre

mat

ure

21

01

11

012

32

00

110

57

00

046

Total

83

06

1111

175

1318

02

440

1736

04

0249

Early

Res

olut

ion

2Fu

llyup

held

00

01

03

03

00

00

20

10

00

010

Par

tlyup

held

10

02

11

05

10

00

32

30

00

019

Not

uphe

ld2

00

21

20

123

10

015

06

30

10

48

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

00

00

00

02

00

00

20

00

00

04

Total

30

05

26

022

41

00

222

103

01

081

Inve

stig

atio

n1

Fully

uphe

ld1

00

10

00

50

00

04

01

40

00

16

Par

tlyup

held

20

01

33

014

01

10

262

37

00

063

Not

uphe

ld2

00

72

10

182

10

033

16

20

00

75

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

00

00

00

01

00

00

10

00

00

02

Total

50

09

54

038

22

10

643

1013

00

0156

Inve

stig

atio

n2

Fully

uphe

ld1

00

10

00

00

00

01

00

00

00

3

Par

tlyup

held

00

00

00

00

00

00

20

01

00

03

Total

10

01

00

00

00

00

30

01

00

06

TotalC

omplaints

2810

167

5586

2353

2947

117

205

2078

192

5311

01,507

TotalC

ontacts

2810

169

5588

2360

2948

128

206

2080

194

5312

11,528

Note:

'No

deci

sion

reac

hed'

incl

udes

notd

uly

mad

e,w

ithdr

awn

and

reso

lved

Further statistical information about this sector is available on ourwebsite atwww.spso.org.uk/statistics

Buildingcontrol

Consumerprotection

Economicdevelopmen

Education

Environmentalhealth&cleansing

Finance

Fire&policeboards

Housing

Land&property

Legal&admin

Other

Personnel

Planning

Recreation&leisure

Roads&transport

Socialwork

Valuationjointboards

Subjectunknownoroutofjurisdiction

Generalenquiry

Total

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CASES DETERMINED 2012 / 2013

www.spso.org.uk/statistics

SPSO4 Melville StreetEdinburghEH3 7NS

Tel 0800 377 7330Fax 0800 377 7331Web www.spso.org.ukCSA www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk