COUNCIL chiefs have been forced to apologise to three people who lodged complaints.

The first apology from Renfrewshire Council was issued to a mum, whose child had been referred to social work by the head teacher at a Renfrewshire primary school. 

The referral was made after the child’s parents had been asked to attend a meeting with the school but were said to have refused. 

However, the parents claimed the school was unable to arrange the meeting at “a convenient time”. 

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) could not determine whether the parents would have attended a meeting on a different date because of shortcomings in record keeping. 

It was also dissatisfied with the local authority’s handling of the complaint, which had been submitted online by the woman and not properly acknowledged. A local councillor then had to progress the issue.

However, the watchdog did advise that the head teacher had followed “correct procedure” in referring the child to social work. 

A second apology was issued to a woman who had complained about the redevelopment of a park which backs on to her property. 

The ombudsman found the grievance had not been treated as a complaint by the council, and asked for an apology to be offered for “not reasonably responding to her correspondence”.

A third apology was issued to a woman, who had complained on behalf of her mother, in relation to a charging order being placed on her property. 

A charging order means someone could lose their home if they don’t pay back what they owe. 

The Gazette:

Cllr Jim Sharkey 

The council was told to apologise to the woman for “failing to provide her with reasonable information” on the financial charges issued. 

The SPSO dealt with 48 complaints made against the council last year, of which none were fully upheld and just three were partly upheld. 

Overall during 2017/18, the council received 6,098 complaints – a decrease from 6,364 in 2016/17 and 6,860 in 2015/16. 

At Monday’s Audit, Risk and Scrutiny Board Councillor Jim Sharkey asked officers why apologies hadn’t been offered by the local authority before it went to an ombudsman investigation. 

He asked: “Why does it have to go through the SPSO? Is the general advice not to apologise in case it costs us money?”

Ken Graham, head of Corporate Governance, said: “Without having the files in front of myself, I can’t comment.”