Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was deselected from the violence prevention programme at his prison following a dispute with the programme's facilitators at one specific session. Mr C also complained that prison staff failed to investigate his complaint adequately.

Our investigation found that Mr C was not deselected solely because of an incident at one specific session, but due to his failure to participate meaningfully in the programme over a period of time. We also found that prison staff looked at relevant evidence during the investigation of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had sent the parole board a report containing incorrect information, specifically that he had not undertaken any educational work. He also felt that they had provided the board with irrelevant intelligence (adverse information obtained by the prison that affects an individual prisoner). He claimed that the report reduced his chances of a fair hearing and having parole granted.

In response to Mr C's concerns about the educational work, the prison sent a supplementary report to the parole board to correct the information they originally provided. However, they maintained that the intelligence and factual information they provided to the parole board had to be disclosed.

We concluded that the prison had taken appropriate and prompt action to provide the information that was not initially given about Mr C's educational work. This ensured that the parole board had the correct information at his hearing. We did not identify any other inconsistencies and considered that the prison had acted appropriately in disclosing the intelligence information to the board in line with relevant guidance.

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 complained to the Care Inspectorate after an incident when her young son was left unattended by his registered childminder. They told her that they had already been in the process of investigating this, because of an earlier complaint about the incident from a member of the public. However, during the process the childminder had voluntarily cancelled her registration and so they now could not investigate further, as they said they were not legally allowed to do so.

Mrs C complained to us that the Care Inspectorate had failed to establish the facts of her complaint and thoroughly investigate it. We found that the Care Inspectorate had thoroughly investigated the other complaint and had upheld both aspects. The childminder had admitted her failings and, in their regulatory capacity, the Care Inspectorate had taken appropriate action that led to her voluntarily cancelling her registration a week before Mrs C complained. Because this had happened, and because she was not registered when Mrs C complained, the Care Inspectorate were in fact unable to investigate. We did not find this position unreasonable and did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Ms C submitted a planning application to the council. She was concerned about the comments that her neighbours made on the application. She corresponded with the council about this and remained dissatisfied at the end of their complaints procedure. She complained to us that the council had not reasonably responded to her correspondence. However, our investigation considered the correspondence and we found that their responses were reasonable.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had carried out works to remove loose render (a covering of plaster or cement) from the outside of his property without first discussing this with other property owners. He complained that this caused additional damage to the render, cost more than was reasonable and that the council failed to carry out repairs.

The council had explained to Mr C that they received a report from an occupier (who happened to be a council tenant) of render falling from the top flat onto the gardens below. They inspected the site and determined, for safety reasons, that they needed to use their statutory powers to issue an emergency statutory notice and instruct a contractor to make the site safe. The contractor did so by removing patches of loose render. Whilst they acknowledged Mr C's concerns about the amount of render removed, they explained that their contractor had only removed the render he considered unsafe. Our investigation reviewed the council's actions and found that they had acted appropriately, and in line with their statutory duties when addressing this issue.

Summary

Mr C, who has a disability, complained about the council's handling of his application for a community care grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund. In particular, he complained that the items he had requested should have been identified as high priority and that the decision-making in his case was wrong.

Our investigation considered the Scottish Government’s guidance setting out the process for councils to follow. In Mr C's case, the council had explained to him that they had refused his application because they considered that, based on the information he had provided, there was not a risk of him going into care if the grant was refused. Mr C appealed against this but the council confirmed their decision. Mr C then requested a further review of the decision (second tier review), and it was considered by a panel of people of who did not work for the Scottish Welfare Fund team. After the second tier review, the council decided, as there was new medical information, to award him a grant for one of the items he had requested. We noted that the explanations given by the council for their decision could have been better, but we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues relating to the council's handling of a planning application granted in 1988/89 for a housing development. The development turned out to be liable to flooding, and Mr C was concerned that the council had not taken this into account when considering the suitability of the site for development. He also said that, although the council had advised him over the years that a flood mitigation scheme (to try to protect the houses built on the lower level) was to be implemented, this did not happen and he had now been advised that no such scheme would be implemented.

During our investigation we found that, at the time of the development, planners did not have any responsibility to consider flooding issues and that it was not until some years after the development was completed that plans and policies were put in place to deal with flooding. We also found no evidence that the council had confirmed that a flood mitigation scheme would be implemented and noted that they had said that any such scheme would be subject to its economic viability.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the adequacy of consultation about a review of a particular water management policy for a local area of water. He felt that the council had failed to take reasonable account of opposition that they had received from statutory consultees to the policy review, and had failed to carry out adequate consultation with the public.

During our investigation we found that the policy review was on-going and that no decision had been taken. We were provided with evidence of the level of consultation carried with the public and the level of interaction with the statutory consultees and the action taken in response to the comments received from the consultees. They had clearly consulted, considered the responses and replied to the complaints, and we found no evidence that the way this was done was inappropriate.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not tell him that his housing benefit entitlement had been reduced to recover outstanding benefit overpayments. We found from our investigation that, although Mr C could not recall receiving advice about overpayments, the council were able to provide copies of the relevant notices, which were correctly addressed. They also confirmed that the notices had not been returned undelivered. Mr C told us that he had been unaware that he had a duty to inform the council of any change in his circumstances which might affect his benefit claim. We were, however, satisfied that this information was available to claimants, and there was no evidence to suggest that the council had failed to notify Mr C of the overpayment.