We laid 13 decisions before the Scottish Parliament this month. For more information, please click the link below.
Download the Ombudsman's overview (PDF, 437KB) or read it online (link is external). Media enquiries can be made by email or via our online form.
Due to an increase in the volume of cases we are currently receiving there is a delay of 12 weeks in allocating some complaints to a complaints reviewer.
This delay has reduced from 11 months in 2022 when we were impacted by COVID 19. In 2023-24 we experienced an increase in the volume of casework we received which impacted on the timescales for allocating some complaints. To address this we are continuing to make positive improvements in how we deliver our service.
We laid 17 decisions before the Scottish Parliament this month. For more information, please click the link below.
Download the Ombudsman's overview (PDF, 418KB) or read it online (link is external). Media enquiries can be made by email or via our online form.
C complained about the water provider for their business, Water Plus. Their complaints fell into three main categories - that Water Plus had failed to accurately bill them for water; that Water Plus had failed to reasonably communicate with them; and that Water Plus had failed to reasonably handle their subsequent complaints about these matters.
On investigation, we faced significant difficulties accessing Water Plus's records, with Water Plus either being unable or unwilling to provide us with the information we requested. However, the evidence we received from the complainant was sufficient for us to reach clear conclusions that failings had occurred in a number of areas. In particular, there was significant confusion and mishandling within Water Plus's billing system and it was not possible to conclude that this was fit for purpose for Scottish Customers.
We also found that Water Plus were using a number of third party organisations to provide aspects of their service to customers, but were unable to clearly explain the structure of the relationship with these third parties and this had introduced considerable additional confusion into the process.
Lastly, we considered it clear that Water Plus had failed to fully investigate all of the issues C had raised and their record-keeping of their complaints investigation was incomplete.
On the basis of these points, we upheld all of C's complaints.
What we are asking Water Plus to do for C:
| Complaint number |
What we found |
What the organisation should do |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
|
(a) |
Water Plus failed to bill C reasonably or accurately for their water services. |
Apologise to C for failing to bill C reasonably or accurately. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets. |
A copy of, or evidence of the apology. By: One month from the date of the final report |
| (b) | Water Plus failed to handle C's complaints reasonably. |
Apologise to C for failing to handle their complaints reasonably. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets |
A copy of, or evidence of the apology. By: One month from the date of the final report. |
We are asking Water Plus to improve the way they do things:
| Complaint number |
What we found |
Outcome needed |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) | It was not possible to be confident that Water Plus had a billing system that was fit for purpose for Scottish customers. | Water Plus should arrange for an independent audit of its billing processes for the Scottish Market, including a review of the integration of their Scottish billing system into the wider Water Plus billing system. |
A copy of the audit findings. By: within six months of the date of this report. |
| (a) | Water Plus failed to explain the nature of their relationship with their partner organisations, or whether delays in payments being processed had been fully investigated. | Water Plus should be able to provide anyone with a clear explanation of their organisational structure and should publish details on their website, setting out clearly what operations are performed by partner organisations. |
A clear explanation of Water Plus's structure and relationships with partner organisations. By: within three months of the date of this report. |
We are asking Water Plus to improve their complaints handling:
| Complaint number |
What we found |
Outcome needed |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
|
(b) |
Water Plus failed to investigate fully all the issues raised by C's complaint and the complaint file appears to be incomplete. |
Water Plus should have a complaints handling process that is fit for purpose.
|
Evidence that an audit or assessment has been made of current complaints handling systems and an action plan implemented to address any findings, including appropriate training for all staff involved. By: Within six months of the date of this report. |
C complained that the water provider for their business, Water Plus, failed to reasonably bill them for their water services and failed to reasonably handle their subsequent complaints about this.
On investigation, we faced significant difficulties accessing Water Plus's records, with Water Plus either being unable or unwilling to provide us with the information we requested. However, the evidence we received from the complainant was sufficient for us to reach clear conclusions that failings had occurred in a number of areas. In particular, there was significant confusion and mishandling within Water Plus's billing system and it was not possible to conclude that this was fit for purpose for Scottish customers.
We also found that Water Plus were using a number of third party organisations to provide aspects of their service to customers, but were unable to clearly explain the structure of the relationship with these third parties and this had introduced considerable additional confusion into the process. There was also a suggestion from Water Plus's internal correspondence that C's contract may have been mis-sold to them, and Water Plus were unable to provide a reasonable level of satisfaction that this had not occurred. Lastly, we considered it clear that Water Plus had failed to fully investigate all of the issues C had raised and their record-keeping of their complaints investigation was incomplete.
On the basis of these points, we upheld all of C's complaints.
What we are asking Water Plus to do for C:
| Complaint number |
What we found |
What the organisation should do |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
|
(a) |
Water Plus failed to bill C reasonably or accurately for their water services. |
Apologise to C for failing to bill C reasonably or accurately. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets. |
A copy of, or evidence of the apology. By: One month from the date of the final report |
| (b) | Water Plus failed to handle C's complaints reasonably. |
Apologise to C for failing to handle their complaints reasonably. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets |
A copy of, or evidence of the apology. By: One month from the date of the final report. |
We are asking Water Plus to improve the way they do things:
| Complaint number |
What we found |
Outcome needed |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
|
(a) |
It was not possible to be confident that Water Plus's customers have not been mis-sold contracts. |
Water Plus should arrange for an independent audit of their sales practices in Scotland. |
A record of the audit and findings, which should evidence sufficient depth to reflect the overall Scottish customer base and any actions taken, or to be taken in this respect. By: within six months of the date of this report. |
| (a) | It was not possible to be confident that Water Plus had a billing system that was fit for purpose for Scottish customers. | Water Plus should arrange for an independent audit of its billing processes for the Scottish Market, including a review of the integration of their Scottish billing system into the wider Water Plus billing system. |
A copy of the audit findings. By: within six months of the date of this report. |
| (a) | Water Plus failed to explain the nature of their relationship with their partner organisations, or whether delays in payments being processed had been fully investigated. | Water Plus should be able to provide anyone with a clear explanation of their organisational structure and should publish details on their website, setting out clearly what operations are performed by partner organisations. |
A clear explanation of Water Plus's structure and relationships with partner organisations. By: within three months of the date of this report. |
We are asking Water Plus to improve their complaints handling:
| Complaint number |
What we found |
Outcome needed |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
|
(b) |
Water Plus failed to investigate fully all the issues raised by C's complaint and the complaint file appears to be incomplete. |
Water Plus should have a complaints handling process that is fit for purpose.
|
Evidence that an audit or assessment has been made of current complaints handling systems and an action plan implemented to address any findings, including appropriate training for all staff involved. By: Within six months of the date of this report. |
We laid 15 decisions before the Scottish Parliament this month. For more information, please click the link below.
Download the Ombudsman's overview (PDF, 210KB) or read it online (link is external). Media enquiries can be made by email or via our online form.
These vacancies are now closed.
Are you interested in joining an organisation that enjoys challenge and strives for continuous improvement?
We are currently recruiting for seven Complaints Reviewers.
Our Complaints Reviewers play a key role in our work, analysing and resolving complaints across a wide range of sectors including councils, NHS, housing associations, most water and sewerage providers, the Scottish Government and its agencies and departments, colleges and universities, prisons, and most Scottish public bodies.
Please note that this vacancy is now closed.
Are you interested in joining an organisation that enjoys challenge and strives for continuous improvement?
We are currently recruiting for an Improvement, Standards and Engagement Reviewing Officer (Child-Friendly).
Working as part of a small team with the Head of Improvement, Standards and Engagement, you will be responsible for leading and developing SPSO’s approach to child friendly model complaints handling procedures.
We laid 25 decisions before the Scottish Parliament this month. For more information, please click the link below.
Download the Ombudsman's overview (PDF, 424KB) or read it online (link is external). Media enquiries can be made by email or via our online form.
C complained about the standard of care and treatment provided to them in relation to a hysterectomy they underwent in January 2020, which resulted in damage to their bowel requiring additional, emergency surgery. In addition to concerns regarding the procedure itself, C also complained that the Board had failed to provide reasonable ongoing care, before, between, and after the surgeries in question.
On investigation, we sought independent clinical advice from an experienced consultant gynaecologist. The advice we received, and which we accepted, was that there were a number of unreasonable failures in the care and treatment provided. Particular key points from our findings were that:
As a result of these failures, we upheld both of C's complaints.
What we are asking the Board to do for C:
| Complaint number |
What we found |
What the organisation should do |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
|
(a) |
The Board failed to carry out the operation in a reasonable manner, with damage occurring which was not identified during the operation, that the operation was carried out by a trainee doctor and this was not openly referred to in the complaint response. |
Apologise to C for the care provided by the Board, acknowledging the impact the bowel injury had on C.
|
A copy of the letter of apology which should meet the standards of the SPSO guidance accessible here: https://www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies. By: 1 month of publication of report |
We are asking the Board to improve the way they do things:
| Complaint number |
What we found |
Outcome needed |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
|
(a) |
The Board failed to carry out the operation in a reasonable manner. |
A Significant Adverse Event Review (SAER) is carried out which includes review of the pre-operative investigations, the decision to undertake the procedure, the missed complication during the operation, a trainee conducting the operation, senior input during and after the operation, the aftercare, investigations postoperation and support given to the clinicians concerned in relation to the event, in particular to trainee and junior doctors.
|
Evidence a SAER has been completed. By: 6 months of publication of report |
| (a) | The Board failed to inform C of the complication in a timely manner. | Complainants should be informed candidly, openly and honestly when a complication occurs during a procedure, including explaining what happened and what action the Board have taken (or intend to take). |
A review of how surgical complications are communicated with patients and consideration for a standard operation procedure for such instances. By: 3 months of publication of report |
We are asking the Board to improve their complaints handling:
| Complaint number |
What we found |
Outcome needed |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
|
(a) |
The response to C’s complaint failed to adequately investigate how the injury occurred, the overall conduct of the procedure and learning from the event. |
Complaint responses are open and candid as to what happened and identify learning and what action will be taken in response.
|
Evidence that the findings of my investigation have been fed back to the staff involved, in a supportive manner, for reflection and learning. By: 2 months of publication of report |
| (a) and (b) | The Board failed to identify through their own investigation the need for a SAER. This includes why this incident was not reported/consideration given to a SAER at the time, and why duty of candour wasn’t applied. The complaint investigation did not consider these omissions and prompt a robust investigation into the incident and candid explanation as to what happened. | Where an incident occurs measures are in place to consider whether further investigation is required and providing open and honest communication with a patient. |
Evidence a review of the reporting processes has been undertaken and whether further action is required to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence. By: 3 months of publication of report |