Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream delayed three years in invoicing him for water services. He believed that if they had contacted him at the start, he would not be facing such a large bill. Since receiving the invoice, Mr C had used Business Stream's website to assess probable usage during the period, had a water meter had been installed, and calculated that his usage was about half of what he was being charged. His complaint was, therefore, not only about delay but a missed opportunity to have the option of having a water meter fitted earlier. Mr C considered that Business Stream had been unreasonable in not being willing to reach an appropriate solution.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found no evidence that, after moving into the premises, he had contacted Business Stream or another water service provider. Business Stream accepted that significant time had passed before they issued an invoice, but said that Mr C could have made them aware earlier that he was using the premises, in which case they would have begun billing him sooner. They accepted that their system of identifying vacant sites had not been robust, but confirmed that in 2013 they put in place new processes, which should ensure that in future they bill customers in a more timely way.

We also found that Business Stream had fully considered Mr C's request for a reduction in his bill, and had told him that they could not do so. This was because they had (appropriately) used the rateable value of the premises to calculate usage because a water meter was not installed and because the amount of water used could not be accurately calculated. To do anything other than this would have been inconsistent with how Business Stream treated other businesses.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had unreasonably invoiced him for a period when his premises had no connection to the public water or waste water network. He told us that Scottish Water had disconnected the water in the street and, as a result, he had no connection to the public network.

We did not uphold his complaint. During our investigation, Business Stream explained that Mr C had not connected his property to the public water supply while carrying out renovations to his premises, although the water supply had been there. Although Mr C provided evidence that the water had been turned off in the street, there was no evidence that it was Scottish Water who had done so, and they had confirmed that they had no record of turning the water off or on in the street at Mr C's business premises. We also found that the water could be turned off by another utility provider or by someone with access to the relevant tool, which could be purchased from a DIY store.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to follow the appropriate procedure at his disciplinary hearing. During our investigation, we obtained a copy of the record taken by the adjudicator at Mr C's hearing and we asked the prison for their comments. We also reviewed the Scottish Prison Service's disciplinary hearings guide which provides guidance on how hearings should be conducted.

After reviewing all of the information, we found no evidence to show that the prison had not followed the appropriate disciplinary procedure and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to handle his complaint appropriately. He said the manager did not offer to discuss the complaint with him, even though prison rules said she was required to, and did not provide him with a full response. In addition, Mr C said he progressed his complaint to the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) but he was not called to the hearing or provided with a response.

During our investigation, we obtained more information from the prison, who provided a copy of the manager's full response. However, they were unable to confirm whether the manager had offered to discuss the complaint. The prison also said they had no record of Mr C progressing his complaint to the ICC. Having considered the available evidence, we took the view that although it was unfortunate that the manager may not have offered Mr C the chance to discuss his complaint, we did not feel that this alone was serious enough for us to uphold his complaint.

Mr C also complained to us that the prison mishandled his complaint to the governor, in that it was either lost or the governor did not respond. As the prison provided confirmation that the governor received and responded to Mr C's complaint, we did not uphold this either.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, refused to attend prison work because he said he was unwell. The prison said that he was required to attend work because staff had not received notification from the prison health centre that Mr C needed to see a doctor, or that he had been assessed as being unfit for work. Mr C complained to us that the prison unreasonably placed him on report for his refusal.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as the evidence confirmed the health centre had not told the prison that Mr C was unfit for work. Because of that, the prison were authorised to place Mr C on report for refusing to attend his work.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing of breaching prison rules. He appealed against the decision but as he believed the prison did not handle it appropriately, he complained to the governor about that. In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C complained that his disciplinary appeal and complaint were not handled appropriately.

In relation to his appeal, Mr C said an officer failed to process his appeal in line with the normal process and the prison governor failed to respond within the relevant timescale. He also said that the internal complaints committee (ICC) did not adequately address the issues he raised. We did not uphold his complaints as, although we found that there was a delay in registering his appeal and a consequent slight delay in responding, there was no evidence that the prison had not otherwise followed procedures correctly.

We told Mr C that we could not consider whether the ICC had adequately addressed his appeal, as he had instructed his solicitor about this, and we cannot look at a matter that is going to be the subject of court proceedings.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that a prison failed to deal appropriately with his property (a canvas belt and house keys). He said these went missing after he arrived at the prison. He also said that after he was transferred to a second prison, the belt was found but not the keys.

During our investigation we inspected the many cards on which Mr C's property was listed, and found no evidence to show that he ever had house keys. Mr C told us that after he complained, the prisons internal complaints committee allowed him to check his belongings. He said that he saw his belt at this time. However, we noted that the list he signed then did not record any belt. Mr C provided us with evidence to show that he had a belt after he moved to the second prison. On balance, we considered there was evidence showing that the belt was identified later, as staff had originally seen the canvas belt as part of Mr C's rucksack strap, which we considered a reasonable explanation.

Summary

Ms C was rehoused following problems with antisocial behaviour in her previous neighbourhood, but was unhappy with the new property as there were some problems with a neighbour. She complained that the council were at fault in allocating her a new property where it was known that there were also antisocial behaviour problems and that they had withheld this information from her.

Our investigation found evidence that the council had taken into consideration the circumstances surrounding Ms C being rehoused, had conducted a risk assessment and allocated the property to her in line with their policies and procedures. We did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the development process after a development close to his home was given planning permission. He said that the permission granted was subject to twelve conditions as the site concerned was both prominent and beautiful. Mr C said that the developer ignored a number of the conditions and that although Mr C complained, the council had failed to take enforcement action and had been 'soft' on the developer and his agents.

The complaint was investigated and all the relevant documentation and the complaints correspondence was taken into account. Independent planning advice was also obtained and taken into consideration. Our investigation found that the development was complicated because of the nature of the site, but that the council had closely monitored it. While enforcement action was considered because of problems with adherence to the conditions, the council opted to progress this by negotiating with the developer, as they had the right to decide to do. Our adviser confirmed that this was a reasonable approach for them to take. We also found that the council had looked at all Mr C's complaints and, where necessary, had raised his concerns with the developer.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had decided to relocate a disabled parking space to a position further from his home. They had initially marked out the space close to his home. However, after consultation with other residents, they decided to move it to a position 15 metres further away. They explained that this space was the most appropriate location for the convenience of all car park users and provided access for blue badge holders and more space for wheelchair users, should this be required.

We considered the legislation in relation to parking places for disabled persons. Although the council had delayed in starting the consultation process, the decision to move the disabled parking space was one they were entitled to take. They had subsequently decided on its location in line with the relevant legislation. In view of this, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.