Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Business Stream were the licensed provider for Mr C's business for six months. During that time, he questioned his water charges, as his business used only a minimal amount. Business Stream encouraged Mr C to investigate the possibility of a leak on his pipework, but nothing was found. Mr C then registered with a new provider and further investigations were carried out. These showed that his water supply also served a number of neighbouring residential properties, and that he had been charged for the water they used. Although his new provider sorted this out, Mr C said that Business Stream had overcharged him, and he complained that they did not handle his water account correctly or efficiently. He also complained that his business incurred unnecessary expense in paying for a plumber to investigate a non-existent leak.

We found that Business Stream had to estimate the opening meter reading based on historic information, as they were not contacted when Mr C's business moved into the property. This led to inaccurate charges, but these were quickly recalculated when accurate meter readings were available. Given the information available to them at the time, and Mr C's concerns about the amounts being charged, we considered it reasonable for Business Stream to suggest that he ask a plumber to investigate. It was also appropriate that this was done at his business's expense. It was not until after Mr C had left Business Stream that the issue with his pipework was identified.

We did think that in the circumstances Business Stream could have done more to reassess Mr C's account. During our investigation, however, they offered to reduce his bill by an amount that we considered fair, so we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to transfer him to an appropriate prison.

Our investigation found that the SPS were entitled to hold Mr C in the prison he was currently in, and we did not uphold his complaint. The SPS also told us, however, that they had agreed that Mr C would transfer to a more appropriate prison when a suitable time to do that was identified.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the prison inappropriately identified him as being suitable for the substance related offending behaviour programme. Mr C was unhappy with this because he said substance misuse was not part of his offence.

The prison told Mr C that because of the nature of his previous convictions, and the assessment carried out as to whether he was suitable for the programme, they were satisfied the outcome was appropriate. The Scottish Prison Service information leaflet on programmes confirmed that when substance misuse is related to an individual prisoner's offending behaviour, they will be targeted for the programme. The information available to the prison confirmed that substance misuse was an element of Mr C's previous convictions and because of that, he was selected as suitable. We were satisfied the prison appropriately identified Mr C as being suitable for the programme and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison did not address his concerns about the temperature in his residential hall. We made enquiries of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), and found that complaints were received from prisoners about the temperature in the hall. Steps were taken to resolve this, including providing advice to prisoners on how to keep the temperature within the hall at an optimum level. In addition, the heating temperature was increased and checks were carried out to make sure the system was operating properly.

As we were satisfied that the prison took appropriate action after the complaints were made, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was identified as needing to participate in programmes before he could be considered for access to less secure prison conditions. He complained to us because he felt the prison had failed to adequately prepare him for progression because the date on which he became eligible for consideration for this had passed by over a year.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) risk management and progression guidance confirms that prisoners serving a longer sentence, such as Mr C, may be eligible for consideration for transfer to open conditions from up to two years before their parole qualifying date, providing they meet the relevant criteria. In Mr C's case, that meant he might have been eligible for consideration to progress to less secure conditions after serving eight months of his sentence. However, the qualifying criteria confirm that a prisoner should have no outstanding programmes to complete and their progression needs to be approved by the risk management team. SPS guidance on how prisoners should be allocated programme spaces confirms that long-term prisoners should be allocated a space according to their parole qualifying date.

The SPS explained that Mr C had been identified as needing to complete two programmes, and was placed on the relevant waiting lists according to his parole qualifying date, in line with the normal process. They confirmed that Mr C had now completed both programmes, and that his final report was being prepared. There were, however, a number of factors impacting upon the prison's ability to complete reports, including staff shortages. After the report was available, the programmes case management board would consider Mr C's case and decide whether he had any further programme needs before the risk management team considered his progression application.

The evidence available confirmed that the SPS were preparing Mr C for progression to less secure conditions in line with their normal process. Although this was not happening as quickly as Mr C hoped, because they were correctly following their process we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Ms C is the head of care at a service providing education and care for young people with additional support needs. A council who placed young people there complained to the Care Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) about the service. The council was unhappy with the outcome of the Inspectorate's investigation, on the basis that a number of key individuals had not been interviewed, and requested a review. The Inspectorate received another complaint from a former service user at this time, which was investigated alongside the review. The outcome of the review was that all of the council's complaints were upheld. Most of the former service user's complaints were also upheld.

Ms C then complained to the Inspectorate about the way in which they handled both investigations. She felt that in their review the Inspectorate went beyond the remit of the original investigation, by interviewing staff not relevant to the council's original complaint, and that they took irrelevant information as fact. She was also dissatisfied that one of her colleagues was not interviewed, despite allegations being made against him. Ms C also said that when she was interviewed, the Inspectorate failed to complete their paperwork in line with their procedures. The Inspectorate partially upheld two of Ms C's complaints. They apologised for some inaccuracies and said that their outcome letters could have been clearer. Although they did not consider that this affected their overall findings, they amended both outcome letters. Ms C was unhappy with the way in which they investigated both her complaints and complained to us.

We considered that the Inspectorate had broad discretion about who they interviewed and the judgements they made on evidence obtained from their investigations. We considered that the individuals interviewed were appropriate and related to the matters under investigation. We also found no evidence to show that the Inspectorate did not consider information put forward by the service. We noted that they had intended to interview one of Ms C's colleagues, but were unable to do so. They had, however, obtained information about him from other staff and had examined incident reports. In terms of natural justice, we considered that it would have been reasonable to have sought the individual's views, and we drew this to the attention of the Inspectorate. However, it appeared that the information Ms C had given about the member of staff was in any case likely to have covered the relevant issues. We found that Ms C's statement had not been signed and dated by her or the interviewing officers, but also that Ms C had not specifically raised a concern about inaccuracies in it. We concluded that these shortcomings did not have a material effect on the outcomes the Inspectorate reached and that they had taken appropriate action.

Summary

After the council carried out road resurfacing work in Mrs C's street, she found that rainwater gathered on the dropped kerb outside her home. She complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to resolve her concerns about this.

The council provided a copy of the policy outlining the height tolerances allowed when resurfacing roads. They also explained that after Mrs C brought this to their attention they had reheated the road surface to try to lower the slight high point beside the dropped kerb. They said that this had to some extent been successful, but accepted that the road was still two to three millimetres higher than the dropped kerb. They said, however, that they were satisfied that the resurfacing work was within the allowed height tolerances and that further work to lower the road was not justified.

After considering all the information provided, we were satisfied that the council had taken reasonable steps to resolve Mrs C's concerns.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not issued him with a neighbour notification about a planning application for a large development next to his business property. He only found out about this when development started, the effects of which had a significant impact on his ability to conduct his business from there. The council explained that the previous owner of Mr C's property had applied for planning permission to change its class of use. Permission had been given, but it said that that the council were to be notified at the start and end of that development. As this had not happened, the council had no record that the property was occupied, so it had not been included on the neighbour notification list.

We took independent advice on this case from one of our planning advisers. The adviser said that the council's explanation was reasonable in the circumstances, and that the root of the problem appeared to be the previous owner's failure to tell them that there had been a commencement of use or to ask for a number to be formally allocated to the property. As the council did not receive this information from the previous occupier, the premises were not included in the document used by the council to identify neighbouring properties that needed to be notified. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council's planning enforcement team about tree pruning that had taken place at a property in the conservation area where he lives. The council contacted the person who had had the trees pruned, who then took steps to mitigate this. The council decided that this was satisfactory, and took no further action. Mr C was unhappy as he thought that the council should have taken enforcement action.

We took advice from one of our planning advisers who said that the council's actions in responding to this matter were reasonable. He also said that in a conservation area, while there is a presumption in favour of preserving trees, they are not automatically protected. As we found no evidence of maladministration or service failure by the council, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that, after he ended his tenancy, the council unreasonably invoiced him for works they carried out to his council house. He explained that while he was still a tenant he had tried to contact the council, in writing and by phone, asking for permission to make alterations and improvements to his home. As he did not hear from them to the contrary, he had gone ahead with the work.

The council explained that they had no record of Mr C's attempts to contact them. They said that they had to carry out substantial repairs and alterations to return the house to a condition where they could re-let it, and they provided us with details of all the work that was done. They also explained that the tenancy agreement specified that if works were carried out without permission, the council were entitled to reclaim (from the tenant who carried them out) the cost of returning the property to an acceptable letting standard.

We reviewed the information from both Mr C and the council, and could find no evidence to show that he had tried to get permission. As the council clearly did not give their permission, and as in those circumstances the tenancy agreement entitled them to recover the costs, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.