Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

In developing his property, Mr C wanted to build over Scottish Water pipework. Scottish Water approved this, subject to certain conditions, including a requirement that the materials to be used for part of the development could not be plastic. As the project was cost-critical and time-critical, Mr C went ahead on the basis of that decision but then expressed his dissatisfaction to Scottish Water, who reconsidered and decided that, although not their preferred option, they were prepared to offer a compromise in that some of the material in question could be plastic. Mr C complained that, by the time of the revised decision, it was too late for him to apply it and, as the revised decision was a cheaper option, he had suffered financial loss by having implemented the first decision. He considered they should have agreed this the first time.

We explained to Mr C that these were decisions for Scottish Water, not for us, and that our role was limited to considering whether their decision-making had been reasonable. We concluded that it had been. For example, there were many reasons for the first decision, so it was clear that Scottish Water had considered the matter carefully. When they issued that decision, it was up to Mr C to go back to them to see if there was scope for amendment. Mr C's project was at a point where cost and time were so critical that he felt he had to go ahead with the work on the basis of the first decision, without waiting to see whether amendment might be possible, but this was not Scottish Water's responsibility. When Scottish Water were approached, they considered Mr C's points carefully and reached a prompt decision to offer a compromise solution. In other words, it was not that their first decision had been wrong: rather, it was that they were prepared to try to accommodate Mr C by thinking of an alternative, which was an example of good complaints handling.

Summary

Mr C told us that, unknown to him, underground pipework had been leaking, and Business Stream had charged him for that water. He considered that the leak had been caused by incompetence on the part of Scottish Water when installing the pipework. He complained that it was unreasonable for Business Stream to charge him for the water lost through the leak.

Mr C had tightened up the joints in question before Scottish Water visited to look at the alleged leak. There was, therefore, no evidence that there had been a leak, and we found that it was appropriate for Business Stream not to take it into account when invoicing him. No evidence was available one way or the other about the standard of workmanship when installing the pipework, and the fact that Mr C had been unaware of any leak for some time did not mean that Business Stream were liable to resolve this. We were, therefore, satisfied that Business Stream had acted appropriately.

Summary

Mr C has a water tap in a lock-up which is separate from his house, and he told us that the water supply to the lock-up is metered. He told us that his water usage was minimal (for washing hands and brushes and the occasional cup of tea or coffee). He complained that Business Stream had unreasonably failed to provide his company with invoiced accounts based on actual water usage; continued to seek payment from him through direct debit; and had demanded an unspecified sum to disconnect the tap.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that Business Stream had carried out the requisite number of water readings each year. We also found that, while Mr C had cancelled his direct debit for payment to Business Stream, they remained his water provider, and they had not been at fault in continuing to issue invoices to Mr C for water used. During our investigation, Business Stream found that they had not investigated his complaint and, in recognition of this, credited a payment to Mr C's account, in line with their service standards.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that untried prisoners on remand were unable to buy newspapers. The prison had told him that they had a local policy which prevented this. They said that it was difficult to predict how long untried prisoners would be in the prison because they could be taken to court and released at very short notice. Because the remand population was more transient, the prison were concerned that they would be left to pay for newspapers when prisoners were released. Mr C said he was willing to pay for his newspaper in advance. He said it was illogical that remand prisoners could order things like fruit and greetings cards but not newspapers.

Our investigation found that newspapers had to be ordered a week in advance. Payment was not taken when goods were ordered but when they were delivered. Difficulties with the prison accounting system meant that debits and credits had to be concluded in the same financial week, so that the prison's account was balanced. Although we thought that the prison could have explained the position more fully to Mr C, we did not uphold his complaint as we found that the prison's actions were reasonable in the circumstances. We also noted that the Scottish Prison Service had since revised their procedure, and were on the point of introducing a new system that would allow remand prisoners to purchase newspapers, if they agreed that they would not be entitled to a refund if released.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the prison failed to take reasonable steps to improve television reception. He said his in-cell signal was poor and although repair work had been carried out, the problem was not fixed.

The prison told us that the repair work indicated that the system was operating appropriately. They said that their location and other factors, such as weather, impacted upon reception and because of that, there was only so much that could be done to try to improve this. We were satisfied the prison took reasonable and appropriate steps to address this, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, who is an advocate for carers, complained to us on behalf of her client (Mrs A), who had complained to a care provider about the support provided to her late brother. Mrs A was unhappy with the care provider’s response, and complained to the Care Inspectorate about the provider. She was not happy with their response either, and asked Mrs C to complain to us that the Inspectorate unreasonably failed to follow their investigation procedure in dealing with her complaint.

We looked at the information provided by Mrs C and Mrs A, as well as the Inspectorate’s records of their investigation. Mrs A disagreed with the outcome of the investigation, but that was not evidence that they had done anything wrong. We found evidence of a well-planned and structured investigation, with specific questions asked and evidence obtained from Mrs A and the care provider. We also found that the Inspectorate considered the evidence but could not establish the facts that gave rise to Mrs A’s complaint. Having reviewed the investigation, and compared it with their procedures, we found no evidence that the Inspectorate failed to follow the procedures.

Summary

After Mrs C began to extend the height of a fence in her garden, the planning department contacted her and explained that planning permission was required to do this. Mrs C said, however, that the council told her on more than one occasion that they could see no reason why planning permission would be refused. She applied for planning permission but this was refused some four months later. Mrs C was unhappy about the delay in reaching a decision on her application, and said that she was not kept properly informed and that she was given incorrect information about the likelihood of the application being granted. She complained to us that the council's handling of her application was unreasonable.

After carefully reviewing the relevant paperwork, we concluded that although the application could have been dealt with more quickly, when no decision had been made within two months, Mrs C had the right to appeal about the fact that her application had not been determined. We noted that the council had told her agent about this. The council had also accepted that she was not kept properly informed about progress, and had apologised. We did not see any evidence to confirm one way or another whether Mrs C was actually given incorrect information prior to her application being submitted. Having taken all this into account, on balance, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to service his electric central heating system regularly or to a sufficient standard. He also was of the view that they were not qualified to carry out this work. In addition, he complained that the council did not respond adequately to his complaints of dampness in his home.

When responding to his complaint, the council confirmed that his heating system was serviced annually, although they said that from a safety point of view this was not required by law. They acknowledged that there had been problems in the recording of one of the services carried out but this was corrected shortly afterwards. They explained that their officers were suitably qualified. In terms of the dampness, they inspected the property on a number of occasions and no dampness was found in the walls. In their view the problem resulted from condensation caused by a lack of heating, the storage of materials in bedrooms and poor ventilation. They carried out works to try and alleviate this and provided Mr C with advice on how to reduce the risk of condensation. As this did not resolve the problem, they agreed to re-render the exterior walls, as Mr C had requested.

We found that, although there had been problems with the council's original heating contractors, Mr C's heating system was serviced annually from the start of his tenancy. We noted that the council had supervised the work of their officers to ensure that they were servicing heating systems correctly and we saw details of their qualifications. In addition, we noted that the council had responded to Mr C's complaints of dampness in line with their housing management policy, had carried out inspections and had taken steps to reduce the risk of condensation. Although we cannot say whether these steps will ultimately resolve the problem, as the council responded in line with their policies, and as Mr C's heating system was serviced annually by appropriately qualified officers, we did not uphold his complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to preserve his free and safe access to a public right of way by refusing to require that the operator of a wind farm remove a number of turbines. He also complained that they failed to ensure that there was an appropriate separation distance between the turbines and the right of way.

The council said that they had relocated the pathway to enable it to make use of a surfaced route previously used by the developer during construction of the turbines. They explained that the planning department had consulted the council's access officer who was happy with the position of the path in relation to the turbines. The original path was not a physically defined route and, despite the development of the new path, there was nothing to stop walkers accessing the original route. In addition, they advised that they were unaware of any minimum distance criteria between paths and turbines.

Having reviewed the background correspondence, we found that the council's actions were designed to improve public access. We noted their view that the original route could still be accessed and we found no evidence of minimum separation distance criteria between path and turbine. We also noted that the only way to determine whether the council have failed in their legal responsibilities to maintain a public right of way is to make an application to a sheriff. As we found no evidence to suggest that the council acted inappropriately in respect of this pathway and the separation distances between path and turbine, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs A was unhappy with the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to a neighbouring property. Her daughter (Miss C) complained on her behalf that council planning officers had considered the application, under delegated powers. She said that the application should have been referred to a council committee as she understood that it related to land that was in council ownership. She also complained that the council had failed to consult with those neighbouring the site, and unreasonably allowed the extension to be built over a culvert (a drain or covered channel that allows water to flow under a road) in a flood risk area.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Miss C's complaints. We found no evidence that the council had acted unreasonably in approving the planning application under delegated powers. They had provided Miss C with documentation showing that they did not own any of the land to which the planning application referred. We were also satisfied that the council had carried out the neighbour notification process appropriately and had not needed to consult with some organisations that Miss C thought should have been involved. Finally, we noted that there was no presumption against development over culverts such as this one, and that the existence of the culvert had been fully taken into account during the planning process.