We did not lay any decisions before the Scottish Parliament this month. For more information and an update on our services in response to COVID-19, please click on the link below.
Download the Ombudsman's overview (PDF, 125KB) or read it online (link is external).
Media enquiries can be made by email.
We laid one decision before the Scottish Parliament this month. For more information please click on the link below.
Download the Ombudsman's overview (PDF, 115KB) or read it online (link is external).
Media enquiries can be made by email.
Ms C complained to my office on behalf of her son, Mr A, about the care and support provided to Mr A by the Council. Mr A was a Looked After Child under Section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (a child who is looked after by the local authority as part of a voluntary arrangement). In September 2015, Mr A moved to a residential school placement outwith the Moray area. In June 2019, the Education component of Mr A’s placement ended following his eighteenth birthday. The Council then transitioned Mr A from Children’s to Adult Social Work Services. Adult Services agreed to financially support Mr A to remain in the residential placement for one year until June 2020 or until an appropriate resource was found in the Moray area.
Ms C is concerned that the Council have not fulfilled their responsibility to provide her son’s residential placement under Continuing Care (the local authority’s duty to provide the same accommodation and other assistance as was being provided by the local authority, immediately before the young person ceased to be looked after).
We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that:
In view of these failings, we upheld Ms C’s complaint that the Council failed to act reasonably regarding Mr A’s care and support.
Ms C also complained about the Council’s communication with her about her son’s care and support. Following advice from a social work adviser, we found that:
In light of these findings, we upheld Ms C’s complaint that the Council failed to communicate reasonably with her.
Lastly, Ms C complained about how the Council handled her complaint. We found that there was an unreasonable delay in Ms C receiving a response to her complaint and the Council’s complaint response had been copied directly from an email that had been sent to Ms C before she submitted her complaint. There was no evidence that the Council had investigated Ms C’s complaints, and the Council’s complaint response did not address all the complaints that Ms C made to the Council or indicate whether her complaints were upheld or not upheld. In view of these significant failings, we upheld Ms C’s complaint that the Council had failed to handle her complaint reasonably.
What we are asking the Council to do for Ms C and Mr A:
| Rec. number |
What we found |
What the organisation should do |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. |
Under complaint (a) we found that:
Under complaint (b) we found that the communication with Ms C was unreasonable. In particular:
Under complaint (c) we found that:
|
Apologise to Ms C and Mr A for:
The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/informationleaflets |
A copy or record of the apology. By: 20 May 2020 |
| 2. | Under complaint (a) we found that the Council failed to act in line with their ordinary residence policy when they indicated that all out of area children have to move back to the Moray area as the basis for only providing funding for Mr A to remain in the residential placement for one year. | Consider whether it would be appropriate to fund Mr A to remain in the residential placement until he is 21 years of age or whether this could be achieved through Self-Directed Support. |
Evidence that the Council have considered funding Mr A’s residential placement until he is 21 years of age or whether this could be achieved through Self-Directed Support, taking into account the findings of this investigation, discussing the matter with Ms C and providing Ms C with full reasons for any decisions reached. By: 20 May 2020 |
We are asking the Council to improve the way they do things:
| Rec. number |
What we found |
Outcome needed |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3. |
Under complaint (a) we found that the Council failed to begin transition planning for Mr A at least three years before he was due to leave school. |
Where a young person has significant additional support needs, transition planning should begin at least three years before a young person is due to leave school.
|
Evidence that the findings on these complaints have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive way (e.g. a record of a meeting with staff; or feedback given at one-to-one sessions). Evidence that the Council have considered any training needs for social work staff in relation to transition planning. By: 22 October 2020 |
| 4. | Under complaint (a) we found that the Council failed to carry out a pathway assessment in line with their Transition to Adult Services Policy prior to making the decision that Continuing Care was not available to Mr A. | Where a young person is approaching adulthood, a pathways assessment should also be carried out to assess throughcare and aftercare options (including an assessment of whether it is in the young person’s best interests to remain in their current placement under Continuing Care rather than transitioning to Adult Services) with the input of the young person, their parents/guardians, Adult Services and any other interested agencies. |
Evidence that the findings on these complaints have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive way (e.g. a record of a meeting with staff; or feedback given at one-to-one sessions). Evidence that the Council have considered any training needs for social work staff in relation to pathways assessments, Continuing Care and Ordinary Residence. Evidence that the Council have reviewed their Continuing Care Procedure taking into account Mr A’s case and the legislative framework. By: 22 October 2020 |
| 5. |
Under complaint (a) we found that the Council did not take reasonable steps to ensure that Mr A could make informed choices. In particular:
|
Looked After Children with complex needs should be given examples of the type of care they might be offered and be taken to see possible care settings. Where a recommendation has been made to offer a Looked After Child independent advocacy, this should be acted on timeously. |
Evidence that the findings on these complaints have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive way (e.g. a record of a meeting with staff; or feedback given at one-to-one sessions). Evidence that the Council have considered any training needs for social work staff in relation to making sure that Looked After Children with complex needs can make informed choices. By: 22 October 2020 |
| 6. | Under complaint (b) we found that the Council largely engaged with Ms C via email rather than holding meetings outwith the formal Looked After Child Review process. | The Council should engage in a meaningful way, including holding meetings with parents/guardians, outwith the formal Looked After Child Review process, when planning the future care for Looked After Children with complex needs. |
Evidence that the findings on these complaints have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive way (e.g. a record of a meeting with staff; or feedback given at one-to-one sessions). By: 22 October 2020 |
| 7. | Under complaint (b) we found that Ms C was not provided with information on how to make a Continuing Care request when she requested this. | Information on how to make a Continuing Care request should be provided to individuals when they request it. |
Evidence that the findings on these complaints have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive way (e.g. a record of a meeting with staff; or feedback given at one-to-one sessions). By: 22 October 2020 |
| 8. |
Under complaint (b) we found that:
|
Invites to Looked After Child Reviews should be distributed in a timely way. Minutes of Looked After Child Review should be typed up and distributed in a timely way. |
Evidence that the Council have a system in place to timeously:
By: 22 October 2020 |
We are asking the Council to improve their complaints handling:
| Rec. number |
What we found |
Outcome needed |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9 |
Under complaint (c) we found that:
|
The necessary systems should be in place to ensure that complaints are handled in line with the Moray Council’s complaint handling procedure and the Model Complaints Handling Procedure and that all staff responsible for dealing with complaints should be aware of their responsibilities in this respect. |
Evidence that the findings on these complaints have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive way (e.g. a record of a meeting with staff; or feedback given at one-to-one sessions). Evidence that the Council’s systems demonstrate senior level/governance responsibility for complaint handling. By: 22 October 2020 |
I note that the Ordinary Residence Policy and Procedure on the Council’s website appears to be out of date. The SPSO appear to have been provided with the most up to date copy of this policy and procedure. The Council may wish to consider updating this on their website.
Today Rosemary Agnew, Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, laid her Strategic Plan for 2020-2024 before the Scottish Parliament, as required by section 17A of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002.
In it the Ombudsman sets out her vision for the delivery of the SPSO’s functions under the strategic themes of accessibility, access to justice, capacity and standards.
We laid 70 decisions before the Scottish Parliament this month. For more information please click on the link below.
Download the Ombudsman's overview (PDF, 278KB) or read it online (link is external).
Media enquiries can be made by email.
Please note the information in this news item is historic and no longer applies.
Following Scottish Government guidance, we are operating under hybrid working arrangements. This allows us to continue delivering our service as normal, while helping to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission across the wider community.
Mr C complained that Clear Business Water (CBW) had failed to communicate with him appropriately or reasonably about his account. He also complained that CBW had billed him unreasonably for water which he did not believe he was liable for and that they had failed to respond reasonably to his complaint.
Mr C disputed whether CBW were in fact his licensed provider, and said that he had been denied the opportunity to choose a provider. Mr C said that CBW had acted unreasonably and inappropriately by sending him letters from an organisation called Universal Debt Collection (UDC). UDC was in fact part of the same company as CBW, but this had not been clear from their correspondence. Mr C said that UDC had threatened him with court action in England, as well as site visits, for which he would be charged and had ignored the fact that he was disputing his water charges. Mr C said that he had to submit his complaint several times, and CBW did not respond properly to the issues he was raising. Mr C also said that CBW had written repeatedly to his home address, which was inappropriate and distressing for his elderly and unwell mother who lived there.
CBW told us that they did not accept that they had acted unreasonably or inappropriately. UDC was part of the same group as CBW, but CBW did not have written debt collection or disconnection procedures. Their process for chasing payment was automated, which CBW believed ensured that their customers were treated fairly. They denied being aware of any vulnerable individuals at any of the addresses they wrote to, and said that they had written to Mr C's residential address when mail was repeatedly returned from his business address.
We found that whilst CBW were Mr C's licensed provider and were entitled to pursue him for payment, their communication with him had been unreasonable, as it had been inaccurate and misleading. We found that UDC employees had given Mr C the impression by telephone that they were a separate debt collection agency. We did not find any evidence Mr C had informed CBW there were vulnerable individuals at the residential address they were writing to. We also found CBW had failed to explain clearly to Mr C what they were billing him for. We found that CBW had not responded fully to Mr C's complaint when they received it, and that they had continued to pursue him for payment whilst the account was in dispute and during our investigation into Mr C's complaint. We upheld all aspects of Mr C's complaint.
What we are asking Clear Business Water to do for Mr C:
| Complaint number |
What we found |
What the organisation should do |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) (b) and (c) | CBW failed to communicate with Mr C reasonably, and unreasonably attempted to bill Mr C for water without resolving his disputes |
Apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this case. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance |
A copy or evidence of the apology By: 20 April 2020 |
| (c) | CBW had not properly investigated Mr C's complaint about double charging | CBW should ensure that they have the systems in place to ensure complaints are properly investigated. They should apply these to investigate Mr C's complaint that he had not previously received communication from Aimera and provide him with a clear summary of all the accounts they believe he holds with them, as well any records they hold of contact between him and Aimera |
A copy of the response provided to Mr C. By: 20 April 2020 |
| (a) (b) and (c) | CBW had not made an offer of goodwill which took into account all the failings identified by this report | CBW should confirm and review their offer of a goodwill payment to Mr C, so that it encompasses the failings identified in this report and in their investigation of the complaint about communication from Aimera |
A copy of the revised offer of goodwill, together with evidence of how it has been calculated, when it was offered and how it was paid. By 20 April 2020 |
We are asking Clear Business Water to improve the way they do things:
| Complaint number |
What we found |
Outcome needed |
What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) |
CBW threatened visits from an Investigations Officer, although there was no locus for on-site investigation |
CBW should have systems in place to ensure they only issue correspondence which accurately reflects their billing and complaints process |
Evidence that these systems are in place and have been communicated to all staff responsible for revenue collection. By: 20 April 2020 |
| (b) | CBW had issued copies of court documents, when they were not engaged in legal action | CBW should only issue documents that accurately reflects their billing and debt recovery process and the actions they are taking |
Evidence that this change has been communicated to all staff responsible for revenue collection and that the necessary procedures are in place. By: 20 April 2020 |
We are asking Clear Business Water to improve their complaints handling:
| Complaint number | What we found | Outcome needed | What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
| (c) |
CBW's complaint handling fell below an acceptable standard |
CBW should respond timeously and comprehensively to complaints following the principles of SPSO's Model Complaint Handling Procedure |
Evidence that CBW has appropriate complaints handling systems in place, and that these have been communicated to relevant staff who are adequately trained to apply them. By: 18 June 2020 |
In response to other complaints upheld by this office, Clear Business Water told us that they had already taken action to fix various problems we had identified. We will ask them for evidence that this has happened:
| Complaint number | What we found | What the organisation say they have done | What we need to see |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) |
CBW's and UDC's communication with Mr C was inaccurate and misleading in its references to English Court proceedings |
CBW have updated the correspondence they and UDC issue, to ensure it accurately reflects the jurisdiction they are operating in |
Evidence that CBW have implemented a form of quality assurance, which allows them to monitor whether their updated procedures are being followed. By: 20 April 2020 |
| (a) | UDC continued to pursue Mr C for payment after he had raised a formal complaint and after CBW were aware the Ombudsman was investigating their complaint | CBW have updated their process for pursuing payment to allow a stop to be put in when a complaint has been raised |
Evidence that CBW have implemented a form of quality assurance that allows them to monitor whether procedures are being followed. By: 20 April 2020 |
Please note that applications are now closed.
Are you interested in joining an organisation that enjoys challenge and strives for continuous improvement? We are currently recruiting for four Independent National Whistleblowing Officer Complaints Reviewers. Further details and how to apply can be found here.
The SPSO is the final stage for complaints about public service organisations in Scotland.
Follow the link below if