Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the marking of his dissertation. One of the markers had emailed Mr C to say that he had made a procedural error in submitting the mark he initially felt the dissertation deserved. The university rejected Mr C's subsequent complaint as the marking had been undertaken in line with their procedures. Mr C brought his complaint to us.

We decided that the marker had made an error, but that it was not a procedural one, simply that an incorrect mark had been entered. However, this error was mitigated against by subsequent reconciliation of the mark with the second marker and scrutiny by an external examiner. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was being escorted by an agency that provides custody escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) between prison and court on several occasions during his trial. He complained that an officer from the agency shared information and comment about him and his case with another officer and that that officer then passed that on to prisoners. He said the prisoners then taunted him with the information and comment, which they said they had got from the agency.

The agency said that, in speaking to staff about the complaint, staff had been very clear that they had not divulged information as alleged. Their account differed from Mr C's, and in the circumstances it was not possible to establish the facts about who said what, if anything. For security reasons involving the nature of Mr C's offences, the agency had not considered it appropriate to interview other prisoners about the events in question, and we accepted their reasons.

Summary

Mr C complained about bullying by a prison officer in his prison. We found that the documentary evidence showed that the officer in question had not been responsible for various actions that Mr C had considered him to have been, such as making a medical decision about whether Mr C should have to share a cell. We also found that the officer had not acted inappropriately in respect of other issues, such as arranging for medical observation of Mr C in line with a prison drugs protocol. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C had previously complained to us that the council failed to properly investigate his complaint about the welfare power of attorney (person named in a legal document which appoints them to act or make certain decisions on behalf of the person who has granted permission for this) who had acted for a member of his family before their death (see complaint 201300636). We upheld this complaint and recommended that council take steps to ensure that the issues he had raised were investigated appropriately. The council carried out a further investigation, but Mr C was unhappy with this and made a further complaint to the council. He referred this complaint to us after receiving the council's response.

We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from a social work adviser. We found that although there were some minor failings in the council's investigation, overall, the investigation was proportionate and was carried out in line with the relevant code of practice. We said that we would bring the minor failings to the board's attention, but we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to hold a complaints review committee (CRC) in relation to the complaint. Although the council had initially told Mr C that they would make arrangements to comply with his request, they then told him that a CRC could not be held, as the issue he was complaining about was not one that could be dealt with by a CRC. We were critical that the council's initial letter raised Mr C's expectations that a CRC would be held. We were also critical of the council's delay in responding to his request for a CRC. However, we found that it had been reasonable for the council not to hold a CRC and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a council tenant, complained that the council did not take reasonable steps to address water ingress in her home. She said despite numerous visits and investigations by the council's staff, they had not been able to identify the source of the water ingress and they had failed to carry out specific agreed work to identify the source of the problem.

We were satisfied that the council accepted that water ingress was a problem in Ms C's home. The evidence showed that their staff and contractors attended Ms C's home on numerous occasions, conducted a variety of tests and carried out repair work in good faith. When this work proved to be unsuccessful, they sought the opinion of independent specialists and acted upon their recommendations. The overall picture was of the council attempting to identify the cause of the water ingress and when one cause was ruled out, or a remedy did not work, they conducted further investigations and sought to identify other potential causes. We did not find this approach unreasonable.

The council had a clear obligation to ensure that Ms C was housed in a property that was wind and watertight. If they were unable to ensure that Ms C's current property met the required standard, they were obliged to arrange for temporary accommodation while the required work was completed and the basic standard restored. We accepted that the council did offer to provide Ms C with temporary accommodation, but that she chose to remain in her home.

We were, therefore, satisfied that the council took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the water ingress problems in Ms C's home and offered Ms C temporary accommodation in line with the terms of her tenancy agreement.

Summary

Following a call from Mr C, the council sent a plumber to unblock a drain at his home. Mr C's own plumber had advised that the blockage was in the communal area of pipework and so when the council's plumber unblocked the drain, all residents in the block were invoiced. Mr C paid his share of this invoice. However, the council were then informed by another resident that he had not been affected by the blockage. As a result they contacted their plumber who confirmed that the blockage was in Mr C's pipework and not in a communal area. As a result they withdrew the invoices from other residents and invoiced Mr C for the full costs. They also apologised for not doing so earlier. Mr C complained that he was never told that he would be liable for the costs should the works not be communal and also that he was not told that he would be charged costs at the out-of-hours rate.

The council explained that it was their standard procedure to highlight costs and responsibilities to customers requesting that they attend to emergency repairs. They explained that information about their services and the costs are also available on their website.

The evidence suggested that Mr C's plumber had said that the block was likely to be in the communal pipework, so Mr C should call in the evening and request that a plumber attend. We obtained copies of the council's procedures and phone scripts. Although we were unable to say what was said in the phone calls, we were satisfied that the council had responded appropriately to Mr C's request for a service and were justified in invoicing Mr C alone, given that the council's plumber located the blockage in the pipework in Mr C's property. As the evidence suggested that the council dealt with the call out appropriately, and as we were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to establish that the council did not inform Mr C of costs and the process during his phone calls to them, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council regarding a planning application they had approved for a residential property to be built in a site adjacent to his home, which is on a cliff edge. After approval of the plans, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) had visited the site and, in contradiction of the plans, recommended that building should not take place within ten metres of the edge of the cliff. Mr C therefore questioned why SEPA were not consulted at the time of the application and the council responded to say that there was nothing about the application which would have triggered a consultation.

As part of our investigation, the council provided SEPA's guidance for which applications they wished to be consulted upon. This did not include any reference to developments on or near cliff edges. The planning advice we received was that the decision not to consult was at the council's discretion in the circumstances. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C said that he complained to the council in October 2014 about a noise nuisance emanating from business premises close to his home but that they failed to follow correct procedures and delayed in dealing with his complaints. The council said that they had investigated all of his complaints and responded to him but found no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance which they could pursue.

We investigated the complaint and found that after Mr C had been in contact with them, the council made a site visit to the premises concerned, spoke to the operator, issued Mr C with noise logs to complete, installed noise monitoring machinery in Mr C's house and took readings. However, no evidence was produced to confirm that a statutory noise nuisance existed which would have allowed the council to issue a noise abatement notice. We also found that, overall, the council responded reasonably to Mr C's complaints and that there were no unreasonable delays in the way they handled his reports of noise. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was involved in a custody dispute with his former partner. Mr C complained that two letters on council headed notepaper were produced in court proceedings which he considered to be false or fraudulently obtained. Mr C complained that the council had not acted reasonably when he reported this to them.

We were satisfied that the council investigated the allegations Mr C made and having established that the letters were unsanctioned and unauthorised, we found that they acted appropriately to remedy the situation by writing to the court and the child benefit office to say so. We were satisfied that the council's obligations under the Data Protection Act meant they were not able to share information about other people with Mr C and were obliged to treat internal staffing matters as confidential. This meant that they were not entitled to share the outcome of their internal investigation with him, or to disclose whether or to what degree staff had been subject to disciplinary action. We determined that the question of whether the matter should have been reported to the police at the end of their internal investigation was a discretionary one.

Summary

Mr C disputed that he had access to heating during the period between a repair being reported to the housing association and the repair taking place. We found that heating was available during this time and so we did not uphold the complaint.