Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Miss C complained to us because she was dissatisfied with the way the council had investigated her complaints about a teacher at her son’s former school.  She said that her son had been bullied, and was not satisfied that the school were doing enough to recognise the problem.  Miss C had since placed her son in another school.  Although the council had said he could return to the original school, she felt that this could not happen without an apology from the teacher, and recognition by the council of their fault in the way they handled the matter.  The complaint that we looked at, however, was only about how the council handled the matter, as we are excluded from looking directly into the internal affairs in an educational establishment run by a local authority.

We did not uphold Miss C’s complaints.  She said that the council’s investigation was flawed in failing to answer any of her questions about the way she had been treated by the teacher, but we saw nothing to suggest that procedures were not properly followed, or that there was any omission in the response she was given.  Miss C was concerned that the council’s investigating officer did not tell her that she was about to leave the council, but the council told us that there was no reason for the member of staff to do so.  We agreed that this was the case, and that the investigation was conducted thoroughly.  It was completed in a short time scale, and this too had caused Miss C concern, but again we found no suggestion that this had any effect on the quality of the investigation.  She also felt that she should have been given an opportunity to discuss the council’s findings but we found that they had correctly signposted her to us under their complaints procedure, after they completed their investigation.

Summary

Mr C took over the occupancy of a property in November 2010 and told us that, at about the same time, he asked for a water meter to be installed. He said that, although Scottish Water came to the premises in December 2010, for various reasons they were unable to fit a meter. He complained that because of the delay in installing a water meter, his bills were too high. He said this was demonstrated by comparison with the invoices issued after the meter was installed.

Our investigation confirmed that Mr C took entry in November 2010, but found that neither he nor Business Stream had evidence to support his contention that he had tried to have a meter installed in 2010. There was evidence that after Mr C began receiving water bills in November the following year, he contacted Business Stream who fitted a water meter in December 2011. Mr C had also disputed the rateable value (RV) on which his unmetered bill was being based as it was in the process of being appealed, and Business Stream put his account on hold. When his new RV was confirmed all the unmetered bills he had received were recalculated. On the basis of the evidence provided we found no grounds to uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream were unreasonably pursuing his business for an unusually high bill, which he did not believe he could have run up, as the premises were open only three evenings a week. Mr C thought it more likely that works carried out by Scottish Water outside his premises during the period covered by the bill were responsible. He said that the trenches they dug were full of water and that this was likely to have caused the high reading.

Mr C provided us with a statement from his plumber that he had attended the property, but had not fixed a leak. He had not previously given Business Stream this information. Mr C also said that he had complained directly to the contractors, but had not contacted either Scottish Water or Business Stream.

We found no evidence that Business Stream's investigation into the complaint was inadequate. The works had been inspected by a site agent, and it was clear that the area of work was on the supply side of Mr C's water meter, meaning that any water lost at this point would not have passed through the meter or affected its reading.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the prison wrongly refused to issue his writing materials to him. In particular, he requested a packet of carbon paper and an eraser. The prison told Mr C that he would not be allowed the carbon paper because prisoners were not allowed to use it.

Our investigation found that the governor is authorised to refuse to allow a prisoner to have items of property in use if they feel any item of property affects the security of the prison. In Mr C's case, the prison had decided that carbon paper was an unauthorised item. They also told us that Mr C would be allowed to have the eraser when his current one needed replaced. In light of this, we did not agree that the prison had wrongly refused to issue Mr C's writing materials.

Mr C also said the prison did not respond appropriately to his complaint. We found that there was a short delay in his complaint form being returned but we were satisfied the prison had responded properly.

Summary

Mr C, a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably refused to allow him certain DVDs due to their explicit content. Mr C argued he had not done anything wrong in terms of The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 (the prison rules). Mr C felt the SPS were going against the certification of DVDs made by the British Board of Film Classification.

Our investigation found that the SPS were not trying to, and did not, effectively re-classify the DVDs. What they did was to apply Rule 45 of the prison rules, which says that prisoners' privileges can be different, as long as the reason for such differences is reasonable and explained. We concluded that the SPS reasonably considered the merits of the DVDs and decided that, in the specific circumstances, they should not be allowed. We also concluded that the SPS gave Mr C a reasonable and proportionate explanation.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the prison's handling of his complaint. He had made a request for additional phone credits and his complaint to the prison was about a delay in this request being processed. In responding, the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) had mentioned the detail of Mr C's request and said that, as it was still being considered by a unit manager, it would not be appropriate for them to duplicate this effort. Mr C complained to us that the ICC had failed to address the issue of delay (the reason for his complaint) and did not feel it was appropriate for them to expect the unit manager to address this when it was his actions that had given cause for complaint. In any event, Mr C noted that the eventual response from the unit manager had not addressed delay.

We noted that the line between Mr C's ongoing request and his complaint about the delay in processing it appeared to have become blurred, and that this had resulted in the ICC overlooking the complaint of delay that was put to them and focussing on the detail of Mr C's request. While we did not agree with Mr C that it would necessarily have been inappropriate for the unit manager to have been asked to respond to the complaint alongside the request, we noted that this did not appear to have happened.

Although the complaint of delay was overlooked, we had to assess the impact this had on Mr C before we could determine whether the prison's actions merited criticism. We also gave consideration to the appropriateness of Mr C's use of the complaints process to complain about a live matter, when he would not have been aware of the extent of the delay he was complaining of. As Mr C did not ask us to consider the substance of his complaint, we were unable to assess the merit of it, or what impact, if any, the identified omission had on him. In the absence of any assessable evidence to demonstrate that the omission had a significant impact on Mr C, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the handling of an intelligence entry (adverse information obtained by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) that affects an individual prisoner) from some years ago. He was concerned that he was not told about the entry at the time. Our investigation found that the SPS had handled this in line with their own processes and the Data Protection Act. They had recorded that Mr C considered the intelligence entry to be inaccurate and had explained why he was not advised of the entry at the time.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately failed to pay him for participating in an offending behaviour programme while he was unemployed. He said staff had told him that he would be paid for attending. In responding to his complaint, the prison informed Mr C that he was not entitled to receive an additional payment for attending a programme.

The prison explained to us that, where prisoners are in employment, they receive a full wage even if they have missed work to attend a programme. Where prisoners are unemployed, they receive a fixed amount regardless of attendance at programmes. Mr C received that amount and was not due any additional payments.

Summary

The owners of the yard next to Mr C's house submitted a planning application for the replacement and relocation of their boiler house and drying kilns. Mr C complained that, although the application was approved with conditions attached to the permission, the council failed to enforce those conditions. He said that as a consequence he had suffered horrendous noise levels. Mr C alleged that the council failed to assess the impact of the planning consent on his home, failed to follow the correct procedures and pursue enforcement action, and failed to assess his subsequent complaint properly.

The complaint was investigated and we obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We made further enquiries of the council, and gave all the relevant information (including planning documentation and all the complaints correspondence) careful consideration. The planning adviser said that the council acted reasonably and early by ensuring that a noise impact assessment report was obtained for the proposed development and was reflected in the conditions attached to the planning permission. When some of the conditions were not met, the council considered taking enforcement action but decided that it would be more appropriate to have their environmental health department lead on the matter of noise nuisance. The planning adviser confirmed that this was a reasonable decision, as enforcement action is discretionary and the environmental health department could use statutory measures to address matters that might otherwise be outside the scope of the planning authority. He noted that the council had retained the option of taking enforcement action should they wish to pursue it in the future.

Mr C undoubtedly suffered noise nuisance and we found that the council acted on his complaints about this, although not in the way he would have wished. We did not uphold his complaint, as it could not be said that they did not understand his complaint or failed properly to assess it.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of planning consents for a site next to his property. Four different consents were approved, including permission for the developer to have a static caravan on the site during construction work. However, the developer kept a caravan on site, in the wrong location, without carrying out any of the approved work. Mr C complained that the council failed to use their enforcement powers to have the caravan removed. He also complained that the council deliberately delayed in responding to his correspondence.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who explained that enforcement action cannot be taken about planning conditions until such time as the relevant consent is implemented by work starting on the site. As no work had started, it was questionable whether there were any grounds to take enforcement action. Despite this, the council served an enforcement notice requiring removal of the caravan by September 2015. Mr C was dissatisfied with this, as the original consent required the caravan to be removed by December 2012. However, as the caravan was allowed on site during construction, and the developer had until September 2015 to commence construction work (which is when the consent expires), we were satisfied that the council had reached a fair and reasoned decision. We were also satisfied that the council responded to Mr C's correspondence in reasonable time.