Not duly made or withdrawn, no recommendations

Summary

C complained about social care provided by the council to their elderly parent and how the council had communicated with them in relation to this.

The complaint was taken to investigation on the basis of the information provided by the council to our initial enquiries and considered by a social work adviser. However, in response to our notification of investigation, the council provided evidence of further information explaining the reasons for the poor communication with C and further details of measures taken to address the failings in this case, which they fully accepted.

We took further advice from our social work adviser, who confirmed the measures taken by the council were reasonable in the circumstances. On this basis, it was agreed with C that we would request the council to issue a further apology to C, which they provided. However, C advised that they did not wish to accept the apology once it had been received. On review of the apology, it appeared to be reasonable and in accordance with the SPSO guidance on apologies. On this basis, the investigation of C's complaint was discontinued as there was nothing further we could achieve.

Summary

C, an advocacy worker, complained about the partnership on behalf of their client (A).

A has cerebral palsy (a condition marked by impaired muscle coordination, typically caused by damage to the brain before or at birth) and communication issues. For the last 18 years, A has lived in their home with support from the partnership. More recently, A’s self-directed support payments were reviewed. As a result of this, their budget was significantly reduced.

C complained to us that, in making the decision, the partnership only took financial factors into account and that they had given little, or no, consideration to their statutory duties under Human Rights and Equality legislation. The potential impact of this decision was that A would be unable to remain in their home and would have had to consider moving to a care/nursing home.

We obtained the partnership's records. The partnership also provided comments strongly objecting our consideration of the complaint. Their position was that the complaint was time barred (the time permitted to bring forward the issue has passed). However, we obtained legal advice that, if we were satisfied that there were special circumstances, that there would be a reasonable prospect of successfully defending a judicial review. We investigated the complaint as we considered that there were special circumstances and that the substantive issues of the complaint potentially raised public interest considerations.

Complaint details were subsequently agreed with C. We also established at this time that the partnership had never implemented their decision and that A’s funding had never been reduced.

A notification and enquiry letter was then sent to the partnership. They responded and confirmed that A’s funding had never been reduced and that it had actually been increased following a review. They asked us to consider what outcome could be achieved in the circumstances. They also noted that the partnership’s working practices had changed since 2018 in light of other decisions by this office.

In view of the partnership’s comments, A confirmed that they no longer wished to pursue their complaint. A confirmed that they were content that partnership had never implemented their 2018 funding decision and that they are happy with the current level of funding.

We considered that there did not appear to have been any injustice and the complaint was treated as withdrawn and closed.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their spouse (A) regarding the lack of support the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) provided in relation to assisting A to participate in an offending management course, specifically that they needed a translator to assist them. During our investigation, SPS apologised to A for the delay in matters related to their management. A was reassessed and a decision was taken that they did not require to complete the course. C then withdrew the complaint.

Summary

C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to follow their risk management guidance, unreasonably failed to complete C's supervision level paperwork and failed to provide relevant information to appropriate parties in time for C's parole review hearing. Despite recognising the potential seriousness of these allegations, we were unable to complete our investigation because C left prison and did not provide us with updated contact details.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison health centre failed to provide medication when requested. He also complained about the responses to his complaints. During our investigation Mr C was liberated from prison. Mr C did not provide us with his post-liberation contact details. As we could not contact Mr C, we closed the file on his complaint.

Summary

We closed this complaint before concluding our investigation. The complainant had asked for the investigation to be put on hold while she made a subject access request, but more than six months later had not asked for our investigation to be continued. At the time of closing, more than a year had passed since she brought her complaint to us and her circumstances had changed, meaning the outcome she was seeking was no longer achievable.

Summary

Mr C complained that his GP unreasonably stopped his diabetic medication, and that the practice later inapppropriately removed him from their patient list. Mr C subseuqently withdrew his complaint and no findings were reached. We closed our case.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his client (Mrs B) in relation to the care provided to her late husband (Mr A). Specifically, Mrs B had concerns about the end of life care Mr A received. During our investigation, Mrs B advised us she wished to withdraw the complaint and explained she was considering legal action.

Summary

Mr C complained that his request for orthodontic treatment was unreasonably refused by the board. Following contact from our office, the board repeated their offer to provide Mr C with a further referral to an orthodontic consultant to assess suitability for treatment. As a result of this further action by the board, we determined that it would not be appropriate to take forward Mr C’s case at this time when he was still undergoing assessments.

Summary

Miss C complained about the medical care and treatment she received following a facial injury she sustained as a result of dental treatment. Miss C pursued a complaint about her dental treatment separately with another organisation and, when that process concluded, she decided not to pursue her complaint with us. Therefore, we closed our file on the complaint and took no further action.