Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about a delay in accessing the Self Change Programme (a programme aimed at addressing offending behaviour). The prison said that prisoners had to have a General Programme Assessment before being eligible to access this programme. They said that Mr C had initially refused to engage with the General Programme Assessment and this had caused the delay in him being identified as eligible. We found evidence to confirm this. We also found that the prison had a waiting list for the Self Change Programme and Mr C was on this waiting list. We found that the prison were appropriately managing the waiting list, in line with the relevant policies. For these reasons we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that there was inadequate choice to meet his food preferences in prison. For example, he liked plain food, rather than curried or spicy food. We considered the relevant prison rule about the provision of food in prison and looked at sample menus. The prison also explained how they reach their decisions on food menus. Our conclusion was that the prison had tried to accommodate Mr C's preferences, had not acted outside any relevant policies, and that it would be impractical and financially unviable for them to meet the likes and dislikes of every prisoner. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were unreasonably holding him back from progressing to less secure conditions, and that they had not dealt with his complaints about progression properly. After investigation, we concluded that although Mr C was understandably keen to progress as quickly as possible, his case was being managed appropriately in line with the relevant guidance and taking account of all relevant evidence and information. We also concluded that the SPS had dealt with Mr Cs complaints appropriately. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about a number of actions of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). Most were beyond our jurisdiction but Mr C also complained about how COPFS had responded to his complaint. We considered that, in their response, COPFS had addressed the issues Mr C complained of, gave him accurate information and reached views that, though Mr C disagreed with, they had discretion to reach. Consequently, we did not uphold his complaint about COPFS' complaints handling.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council after they forcibly entered his property whilst attempting to stop a leak reported by his downstairs neighbour. After the council turned off the water to Mr C's property, his neighbour reported that the leak had slowed and then stopped.

This led the council to advise that Mr C should seek the services of a plumber to inspect his property for the source of the leak. He did this but the plumber was unable to locate any leak and concluded that the council's assessment that the leak originated in his property was incorrect. As a result of this, the council agreed to waive their recovery of the costs of entering his property but Mr C was unhappy that they refused to pay the insurance excess he had to pay as a result of what he considered to be unnecessary inspection work.

On investigation, we considered that, based on the information available to the council at the time, their assessment that the leak originated in his property had been reasonable. They had followed their procedures in entering Mr C's property and turning off the water, and we found their agreement to waive their recovery of costs to be good practice in the circumstances. We did not deem it to be reasonable to expect them to pay Mr C's insurance excess, as we considered he had a responsibility to ensure that his property was not the source of the leak.

Summary

Mr C had complained to the council about a statutory notice on his property. His complaint was reviewed by consultants acting on behalf of the council. He complained to us that the investigation process, as instructed by the council and carried out by the consultant, was not independent, thorough or fair. Mr C also complained to us that the council had not appropriately explained and documented the amount he was charged.

We found that the project that was subject to the statutory notice had been fully reviewed by the consultant and a sizeable adjustment had been made to the final bill. The council had not therefore acted unreasonably. Further, we found that the charges had been appropriately explained and documented and we were satisfied that Mr C received all of the information the council had provided to other owners in a similar position. In the absence of evidence that this was not the case or that the council had not followed usual practice in explaining and documenting their charges to Mr C, we did not have grounds to determine that the council acted unreasonably, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C had complained to the council about their handling of his request to have his home adapted. He was unhappy with their decision and asked for this to be reviewed by the complaints review committee (CRC). Mr C was dissatisfied with the way that the CRC considered his complaint and asked us to look at his concerns. Mr C complained that the CRC had failed to adequately consider the information provided and that there were unreasonable delays in the process.

After investigation, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the CRC had an extensive pack of information available to them and had heard the position of both sides. We also found that Mr C had agreed that the CRC should reach their decision on the basis of the evidence they had already heard and so we were not critical that they had reached their decision after considering the information available to them at that time.

While we did find that there had been a significant deviation from the statutory timescales for a CRC, we considered that the council had provided a reasonable explanation for this. Adaptations were made to the standard practice due to Mr C's condition, which meant that the case could not be heard over one or two days as normal. Availability of all parties, including Mr C, council staff and CRC panel members, then became a factor in reconvening the meeting. We were satisfied that the delays were reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the standard of work undertaken at their property by a company installing insulated cladding. The company had a contract with the council, who were coordinating this work under Scottish Government grant funding. The company were responsible for offering the insulation works to owner occupiers, and Mr and Mrs C signed a contract for them to deliver this work.

The council's role was to monitor the works as they were being undertaken, to ensure that they were of an appropriate standard, and to ensure that appropriate materials were used. This was to ensure that the final product fulfilled the criteria for a full warranty on the works. They also took on a role as intermediary in any dispute between the company and Mr and Mrs C.

Our investigation found that the council inspected the works as they progressed, and were satisfied with the work on site. Mr and Mrs C started to express dissatisfaction when the work was nearly completed. The council discussed these concerns with them and with the company. Over the period of a year they worked with both sides to try and find a satisfactory resolution to the issues raised, but Mr and Mrs C remained dissatisfied.

We found that the council had fulfilled their responsibilities in relation to the work being undertaken and we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint. We did however note that Mr and Mrs C's contract was with the company, so they could pursue the issue further with the company if they wished to do so.

Summary

Ms C said that since her neighbour moved next door, she had been disturbed and upset by her neighbour's anti-social behaviour. She complained that while she had brought her concerns to her landlord (the housing association), they had failed to reasonably respond to her concerns.

We found that although many complaints had been made, they were denied by Ms C's neighbour. The association was unable to confirm that anti-social behaviour had taken place because there was no independent evidence of such behaviour. This was despite the association having involved third parties such as the police and the council in their investigation. The evidence showed that throughout, the association had followed their policy on anti-social behaviour complaints - they had interviewed both parties, attempted to obtain independent verification and used noise monitoring machinery. They had also offered a mutual exchange of house to the parties involved. No proof of anti-social behaviour had been found. In these circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that a member of staff at her GP practice had divulged confidential medical information about her to a mutual acquaintance and the practice did not thoroughly and appropriately investigate her complaint to them about this.

Our investigation found that the practice had taken reasonable and appropriate action to investigate the matter, including taking statements from Ms C's friend (who had overheard a conversation between the staff member and the mutual acquaintance), the mutual acquaintance and the staff member. Despite this, it was not possible to determine exactly what had been said. In these circumstances, we were unable to uphold the complaint.