Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

A charity operates out of three units in a shopping centre. Mr C complained on behalf of the charity that they were being charged for surface water drainage (SWD) on the units despite the roof operating as a car park. Mr C said that the owner of the car park pays for SWD and, therefore, Business Stream were charging twice for the same services.

Business Stream told us that all three units have their own rateable value, as detailed on the Scottish Assessors Association website (which contains information about the current rateable values for properties in Scotland). To be charged SWD there must be a rateable value associated with the property, as this how the bill is calculated. The shopping centre and the car park have no rateable value and so could not be charged SWD. Business Stream did tell us that the owner of the car park had been charged a small amount for SWD, but that this was a mistake and they would correct it. We found that Business Stream had followed their policy in applying SWD charges to the units and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Accountant of Court had not properly supervised a judicial factor. A judicial factor is appointed when money and assets need to be protected to ensure that debtors can, if possible, be paid. One had been appointed in relation to a firm of solicitors that had undertaken work relating to the executry of Mr C's late mother. Before this work was completed the solicitors had taken interim fees and had these assessed, and they had also ceased trading. The final work was transferred to another firm and a judicial factor was appointed to ensure debts were paid whenever possible. Mr C told us he was unhappy that when he complained about the amount of fees charged, the judicial factor referred this to an Auditor of Court for the fee to be 'taxed'. This is a formal process and the decision (called taxation) is normally binding. Mr C said that the fees could simply have been changed without any need for this process, and that the decision was based on an assumption that there were five meetings with the solicitors when there had only been two. He also complained to the Law Society (who regulate the work of solicitors) who accepted that the recording of three meetings had been dishonest. Mr C said that in light of the Law Society's findings the judicial factor had wrongly reported that there was no evidence of dishonesty.

The judicial factor is not within our jurisdiction, neither are solicitors. Our role was limited to assessing whether the Accountant of Court had correctly supervised the judicial factor. Before we could say that they had failed to do so, we would need to find that they had been wrong to rely on the decisions of the judicial factor, either because these were clearly unreasonable or there was a material error. We found that there was no evidence that the taxation calculation included five meetings. The decision had not relied on the solicitors' files, which were incomplete. We also found that, as Mr C alleged dishonesty in the fee calculation, the referral to someone independent was appropriate and that there was no need to investigate the taking of the interim fee. In the circumstances, there was no evidence that the Accountant of Court had not acted reasonably within their discretion when supervising the judicial factor and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison did not follow relevant policy in dealing with his progression through the prison system to less secure conditions, in preparation for his eventual release. Mr C felt that two Scottish Prison Service (SPS) policies about progression were contradictory. He also complained about how the SPS handled his complaint.

We looked at the relevant SPS policies and found that they did not set out an automatic progression route with mandatory timescales. Instead, they set out a framework within which SPS staff could assess the needs of, and risks presented by, prisoners. Each prisoner's case is dealt with on its individual merits, taking into account a number of relevant factors, with timescales presented as a guide. One of the policies clearly stated that it was setting out a best case scenario, and that the time taken to progress could be longer or shorter than suggested. We could not see any contradiction, in administrative terms, between the relevant SPS policies. Having looked at the records for Mr C's case, we could not conclude that his prison unreasonably failed to follow policy in dealing with his progression. In addition, we were satisfied that the SPS' handling of Mr C's complaint was adequate in the circumstances.

Summary

Mr C complained that the adjudicator's handling of his disciplinary hearing was inappropriate. We obtained a copy of the record taken at the hearing, and reviewed the relevant Scottish Prison Service guidance document to assess whether the hearing was carried out appropriately.

We were satisfied that the adjudicator's handling of Mr C's disciplinary hearing was appropriate and in line with prison rules and the relevant guidance.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately ignored instructions issued by the prison health centre. He said he was to be provided with a suitable chair and orthopaedic mattress because of back pain. The prison said they checked with the health centre who confirmed that there was no medical requirement for Mr C to receive the items, but he disputed that.

We checked the position with the health board responsible for the prison health centre, who initially told us the prison health centre did support Mr C's request for the chair and mattress. However, the board then told us that this was wrong. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service checked with the prison doctor, who reviewed Mr C's medical record and confirmed that he did not need to be provided with the chair or mattress. Because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Forestry Commission Scotland (the Commmission) had not carried out our recommendations on a previous complaint he made about the humane dispatch of deer (case 201103288). He also said that they had not adequately explained and clarified their policy and that he believed the response he received when he raised matters with them was inadequate and dismissive.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the commission had implemented our recommendations appropriately and reasonably. Although Mr C continued to disagree with their policy on the humane dispatch of deer this was a discretionary decision for the Commission, and one that we had already considered in our previous investigation. In his most recent complaint to them, Mr C had continued to raise matters that we had already investigated, and so they had made it clear in their letter to him that they did not intend to continue to correspond on these matters. They had appropriately and reasonably addressed the new issues he raised.

Summary

Mr C complained about a staircase that his neighbour erected near their mutual property boundary. He said that the original plans showed a staircase at the other end of the building, to which he did not object. Mr C told us that he now feels that he has no privacy because, although there is a high wall between him and his neighbour, his neighbour was allowed to build above it.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers who found no concerns about the original decision, or the decision to treat this change as a non-material variation to the plans. We explained to Mr C that planning authorities make decisions on a wide range of planning matters, and have the right to decide on all of these by exercising their discretion. Our role is to consider the council's handling of the matter. In this case we found no evidence of maladministration or service failure on the part of the council, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council did not follow their procedures when dealing with her concerns that her child was being bullied at school. She also complained about how the council dealt with her complaint.

The law describes the types of complaints we can and cannot look at, and what we can and cannot do about them. It says that we cannot look into conduct or discipline matters in schools, so we could not investigate the allegations of bullying or reach a view on whether Miss C was bullied. It is important to note that although Mrs C was certain her child was being bullied, the school did not agree. We looked into the school records and found that although Mrs C was not satisfied with the outcome, her concerns were taken seriously. In keeping with their procedures the school made reports of alleged bullying incidents, records of meetings they had with Mrs C, and action plans to support the child at school.

Mrs C also felt that the council's response to her complaint was factually inaccurate. We found, however, that it was an accurate reflection of the school's records, and their letter to Mrs C was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about how the council handled his concerns about nuisance and anti-social behaviour. He had complained about damage to common areas, noise nuisance and the keeping of chickens which he believed attracted vermin.

We found that the council followed their policy when Mr C reported neighbour nuisance and took reasonable steps to investigate and corroborate his complaints. They inspected the area where the chickens were kept and found it to be of a reasonable standard. They found no evidence of vermin and offered advice about signs of rodent activity to watch out for. They also offered to monitor noise by installing monitoring equipment, although Mr C declined this.

The council took reasonable steps to obtain witness evidence. We found that the evidence gathered did not substantiate Mr C's concerns and so the council had no grounds on which to act. Although they saw damage to a gate, there was no evidence to prove who was responsible for this. The council had advised Mr C's neighbour that the close was common to both properties and that they should respect this, and had offered mediation. We concluded that the council acted appropriately.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the council's decision to demolish a tenement building containing her three flats. She complained about the council's communication with her, and about the way they addressed the problems with the building.

After reviewing correspondence between Ms C and the council, we did not uphold either of her complaints. We found no evidence that the council's communication was inappropriate. We also found that the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 permits the council to carry out urgent work, such as demolition, to reduce or remove a danger. Although we understood that she felt that they should not have done so in this case, this was a discretionary decision for them to make. We cannot question the merits of discretionary decisions unless we find failings, which we did not find in this case.