Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained the board had wrongly diagnosed his son (child A) with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD - a group of behavioural symptoms that include inattentiveness, hyperactivity and impulsiveness) and was concerned about the medication that had been prescribed.

Mr C was also unhappy that he had not been consulted before child A was assessed and diagnosed. He complained that crucial information provided by him had been disregarded by the board’s Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service. Mr C was also concerned that entries concerning him and his family in child A’s medical records, which he disputed, may have impacted upon the diagnosis of ADHD.

We appreciated Mr C’s intention throughout had been to achieve the best outcome for child A. We took independent advice from an adviser who is a consultant psychiatrist in child and adolescent mental health. The adviser said that the assessment of child A appeared to have been comprehensive and balanced, taking account of the information available at the time, and was in line with the relevant national guidance. The adviser considered that the diagnosis of ADHD and the medication prescribed to child A were also appropriate. The adviser could find no evidence that the disputed entries in child A’s medical records about Mr C and his family had influenced the diagnosis. We accepted that advice.

Taking account of all the evidence, we did not find the board had inappropriately diagnosed child A with ADHD and so we did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who had Asperger's syndrome, was a student at the university. Complaints by staff and students about her behaviour were brought to her attention, and she was advised that the matter would be brought to a discipline committee if the situation continued. Subsequently, the matter was brought to the committee and, after hearing from Ms C, a decision was taken to expel her. However, the expulsion was suspended to allow Ms C to change her behaviour. Nonetheless, the unacceptable behaviour continued and Ms C's case progressed through the university's discipline process. She later appealed the expulsion decision to the university court.

Ms C's unacceptable actions towards other students and staff continued, and a final decision was taken to expel her with immediate effect. Ms C considered that the university had dealt with her unfairly and that she had not been fully informed of the process. She said that the penalty of expulsion was totally disproportionate and was unreasonable because it would affect the rest of her life.

We investigated Ms C's complaint and found that, as required, the university had made reasonable adjustments for Ms C's disability. They had provided her with advice and information about the discipline process. We found that the process had followed the university's own guidance, about which Ms C had been made aware. Ms C had been given advice and a number of chances to change her behaviour, but she did not do so. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained because he said the adjudicator failed to follow the proper process at his disciplinary hearing. In particular, Mr C said he was not allowed to cross-examine the first witness who was called to give evidence against him. He also said he had wanted to call three witnesses but was only permitted one, and he was not allowed to put forward points in mitigation.

The prison rules confirm that the adjudicator must allow the prisoner the opportunity to call witnesses where permitted to do so, and must allow the prisoner to cross-examine any other witness. The prison rules also confirm that the adjudicator has discretion when deciding whether to allow the prisoner to call witnesses.

We reviewed the disciplinary paperwork and questioned the adjudicator. The paperwork confirmed that Mr C wanted to have the witnesses against him appear in person so the adjudicator called to the hearing the officer who reported Mr C. The paperwork also confirmed that the adjudicator permitted two of Mr C's witnesses. The paperwork also noted the response put forward by Mr C in mitigation.

In light of the evidence available, we were satisfied that the adjudicator followed the proper process and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a decision Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) had made about the steps he could take to control animals on his land. His concern was that animals were causing damage and, while SNH permitted him to cull a specific number of them, he was unhappy that they restricted this number. Mr C felt SNH had been more concerned about being seen to have taken a balanced approach than by making an evidence-based decision (SNH had explained to Mr C that they have a duty to take a balanced approach to such matters).

We considered whether there was maladministration in SNH's decision-making process. Their guidance explained that they had to take a balanced approach and pointed to the various factors they were to consider. Although Mr C felt they had not taken specific concerns into account, SNH's guidance explained that it was not for SNH to be experts in the areas he had pointed to. As a result, the evidence showed that they had considered the relevant factors in reaching their position and there was fundamental disagreement with Mr C about their decision.

While we recognised that this was an important matter for Mr C, and that he was fully entitled to disagree with SNH, we considered the evidence indicated that they had made a decision they were entitled to have made. As there was no maladministration, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) had failed to investigate his complaint that his neighbour's septic tank was discharging unsafely into a roadside ditch and that it was, on occasion, flooding his back garden. Mr C said his submission to SEPA had been ignored and SEPA had refused to test the discharge. Mr C also complained that SEPA could not show that the consent to discharge granted in 1968 was being properly adhered to.

SEPA said their officers had investigated Mr C's complaint in line with their procedures, which allowed officers to take discretionary decisions on the extent of any investigation carried out. The site had been visited three times, with no evidence found by officers to justify further testing. Although the issues around the conditions attached to the consent to discharge had not been raised by Mr C initially, SEPA did not agree the conditions were being breached and said there was no evidence to that effect.

We found that SEPA had followed their procedures correctly in investigating the complaint. The procedures allowed their officers to exercise their professional judgement, which they had done in a reasonable fashion and which they had extensively documented at the time. We did not find they had failed to respond to Mr C's complaints and, although we accepted that he did not agree with their conclusions, this was not sufficient to constitute maladministration.

Summary

Mr C complained that maps used by Forestry Commission Scotland (the commission) in a consultation included inaccurate information about his land. The commission investigated, concluded that the maps were inaccurate, provided Mr C and statutory consultees with accurate maps, and updated the documents relating to the consultation on their website. Mr C remained dissatisfied and brought his complaints to us. We decided that the commission's actions had not been unreasonable and did not uphold his complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that during an interview with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), an officer made inappropriate remarks. He also complained that the time taken to investigate his allegations against a number of police officers was unreasonably protracted, and that he was not kept up to date on progress.

Our investigation was unable to establish whether the remarks Mr C complained about had been made by the officer in question. Regarding communication during the investigation of Mr C's allegations, we found that there were failings by the COPFS over several months. However, the COPFS had apologised to Mr C for this and undertaken to update him regularly. After that point, communication between the COPFS and Mr C was regular. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about the social work department's handling of his concerns regarding his mother. This complaint was considered by a Complaints Review Committee (CRC) and was partly upheld. However, Mr C was concerned that the CRC had not been properly conducted and he complained to us about this. He raised concerns that the CRC stopped him from making submissions or asking questions on occasion, which he said meant he had no reasonable opportunity to present his case. He also raised concerns that no minutes were taken at the CRC and there was no reasonable record of the discussion on which the CRC's decision was based.

The council said Mr C had ample opportunity to make submissions and ask questions of witnesses. Although the council acknowledged that the chair of the committee curtailed some of Mr C's questions and submissions, they said this was because he was repeating information or raising points that were not relevant to the complaint. In relation to the records, the council provided a copy of the CRC minute, the decision letter and the handwritten notes from the CRC clerk. The council also noted that there was no requirement to keep a transcript or verbatim record of the CRC hearing.

After investigating these issues, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found no evidence that Mr C had been inappropriately stopped from making submissions or questioning witnesses, and the CRC records showed Mr C had an opportunity to present his case, refer to documents and ask questions over several hours. In relation to the records, we accepted that there was no specific requirement to keep a verbatim account of the hearing, but we considered that the council should keep sufficient records of the evidence and arguments considered in order to explain the reasons for their decision. We found, on balance, that the council's records were reasonable. While the decision letter was brief, it did identify the points of complaint which were upheld and not upheld, as well as setting out the CRC's findings and conclusions on each point.

Summary

Mr C was an objector to a planning application considered by the council's planning committee. He believed that the report on handling considered by the committee contained a number of serious errors which meant the committee had been unable to make an accurate assessment of the application. In particular, Mr C said that the correct planning policies had not been followed and incorrect advice had been given by the council's flood prevention officer on the flood risk to an access road.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our adviser said the report on handling had presented an appropriately balanced view of the application and the relevant policies. He said the council had been correct not to include historic reasons for refusal, as they were not applicable to the application under consideration.

Our investigation found that the council's flood prevention officer had acted proportionately in their assessment of the application and, specifically, the access road. Although the council had acknowledged an error in some of their correspondence, this was a matter of millimetres and they were entitled to take a view on whether this was materially significant. We also found the available evidence did not show the report's assessment of the access road was inadequate or inaccurate.

Summary

Mr C complained the council had failed to respond appropriately to his report of a collapsing building. He felt they had not acted quickly enough in response to the original report, which had left the public at risk. He also complained that too much time had been given to the owners of the property to resolve the problem and the council had failed to use their statutory powers appropriately. Mr C said that when the council had taken action and demolished the building, they had left the site in a dangerous condition, inappropriate for a conservation area. He said that the council had also not taken account of the conservation area status that protected the site, by seeking the appropriate consents, despite the 12 months from his first report to the actual demolition of the site. He also complained that part of his boundary wall was demolished unnecessarily.

Our investigation found the council had acted appropriately by giving the owners of the building a reasonable length of time to repair the problem, which would have avoided demolition in a conservation area. The building had continued to deteriorate and the council, acting on the advice of a structural engineer, had had no choice but to demolish the structure. Responsibility for the site remained with the owners and the council had gone beyond their statutory obligations in erecting flood defences. There was no evidence that the boundary wall had been unnecessarily demolished, as it had been taken down as part of making the site safe.