Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

After her appendix was removed, Ms C suffered a number of complications which meant that her recovery was prolonged. She also developed a hernia (an area of weakness in the abdominal wall muscles), and an operation to repair this was carried out. Ms C was in hospital for nearly a month because the operation was prolonged and difficult, and there were concerns about reduced blood flow to the skin edges at the operation site. She was discharged home, and was to have her wound managed by district nurses. Five days later, she was readmitted to hospital and underwent another operation to remove dead skin. Ms C complained that she had not been not fit to be discharged and that hospital staff failed to ensure that her wound was healing appropriately. She also complained that district nurses were shocked at the condition of the wound and after several days made arrangements for her to return to the hospital for the further operation.

After taking independent advice from two of our health advisers, a surgeon and a nurse, we did not uphold the complaint. We found that nursing and psychiatric staff had tried to alleviate Ms C's concerns about discharge, and that it was reasonable to discharge her in the absence of any specific reason to stay in hospital such as signs of infection or concerns about the wound. Furthermore, there was evidence that the wound was inspected on the day of discharge, there were no concerns about it and it had previously been dry and clean. We also found it was appropriate to discharge Ms C to the care of district nurses for wound management.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had not upheld his academic appeal about the mark he was awarded for his dissertation on a Master of Laws course. He felt his appeal had not been properly considered and examined. He raised many issues about his dissatisfaction with how the university had treated him, including application of procedures, matters of supervision, academic judgement and staff competencies. Of the issues he complained about, we were only able to consider those about how his appeal was handled, and whether the university had complied with their appeal regulations, as we cannot look at matters of academic judgment.

Our investigation reviewed the content of the appeal proceedings and the evidence gathered. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that the university had followed its procedures and regulations. In particular, we found that they had taken account of the evidence that Mr C provided and considered the points he raised when deciding whether there was enough evidence to indicate that the appeal should be taken to the next stage.

Summary

Mr C opened a business in a shopping centre. Three years later, he received an invoice for £8,700 for water charges based on a rateable value of £60,000. Mr C said the rateable value was wrong and was currently £40,000. He complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably delayed in billing his company for the charges, and unreasonably refused to base the charges on the current rateable value of the property.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints, as we found that there had been no delay by Business Stream. It was Mr C's responsibility to tell Scottish Water that his company had moved into the premises, and to choose a water service provider. After investigating, we were satisfied that there was no evidence that the company had done that, and we found that Business Stream had issued the invoice promptly when they became aware that the company was operating from the premises. We also found that Business Stream’s calculation of the charges was based on appropriate rateable values and was in line with their rateable values policy.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of a charity that Business Stream did not close the relevant water account when the charity notified them that they had closed one of their shops. As a result of this, Business Stream continued to charge for the shop's water supply until the charity contacted them again, some 14 months after the shop had closed. Ms C sent us evidence that the charity had called Business Stream around the time the shop closed, and said that the call was to tell them of the closure. Business Stream said that they had no record of this. We examined their records and found that there was no evidence that Business Stream had been told that the shop had been closed at that time.

We examined the relevant legislation and Business Stream's policies. These were clear that the account should be closed from when Business Stream were told that the shop had closed, unless someone else moved into the property and started to pay the water charges, or a meter reading was due to be carried out . Business Stream told us that no one else had occupied the property during the relevant period. They also said that there was no meter in the property and that it was billed on assessed charges (based on the size of the property, the facilities and the number of staff employed).

We asked Business Stream for their comments on the evidence Ms C had sent us. They said that had no record of this call and that they could not comment further on it. They said that they had adhered to their policies in respect of closing the account from the date they were told that the charity had moved out. They said that there was insufficient evidence that they had been notified at the time the shop closed and that they would not be backdating the charge. However, they agreed to remove the debt recovery charge they had added to the account. Our role is to consider if there has been administrative error or service failure by an organisation. As there was no record that Business Stream had received notification that the charity shop had closed at that time, we did not consider that there was any evidence of administrative error or service failure on their part, and so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C owned a hotel. He found that the water bills for his business were disproportionately high and queried the amounts owed with Business Stream. It was established that there must have been a leak but due to the nature of the business it was several months before the floors could be lifted and the leak located. Mr C complained that, having located the leak and proved that his business did not use the water he had been charged for, Business Stream failed to grant a 'burst allowance' for the full duration of the leak. A burst allowance is made in cases where a leak has been caused by Scottish Water's actions or on pipework for which they are responsible or in cases where the customer can show that the leaked water did not drain into Scottish Water's sewers.

We found that the grounds for this allowance were limited in Mr C's case. The leak was on his pipework and there was no suggestion that Scottish Water had caused the problem. Furthermore, there was no clear evidence as to where the water drained to. We were satisfied that Business Stream submitted a burst allowance application to Scottish Water on Mr C's behalf and that, when it was rejected, they sought further information from him to support his claim. Mr C did not provide the requested information and Business Stream offered a credit to his account as a goodwill gesture, separate from the allowance. Although we acknowledged that Mr C clearly had a leak and had anecdotal evidence to support his case, there were no apparent grounds for a burst allowance. We were satisfied that Business Stream made a generous offer that was reasonable, based on the evidence available to them.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the prison were unfairly operating the prisoner wage earning policy in relation to passmen positions (which generally involve cleaning duties). The policy applies to all public prisons and sets out the wage levels prisoners should be paid, depending on their role and the skills required. In Mr C's case, he said that he had relevant qualifications and training but despite that, prisoners with no qualifications or training were paid the same amount as him, which was unfair.

In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. When we investigated, the prison told us that staff assessed Mr C's work role and placed him at the wage band they felt was appropriate. His role involved general cleaning, including sweeping, mopping and emptying bins. In addition, they advised that there were a number of prisoners with passmen roles and their wage levels varied depending on the quality of their work, the application of their skills, the demand placed upon them and their levels of trust, their personal motivation and their ability to adhere to instructions.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he had been categorised as a medium security risk. He felt that he should have been given a 'low' rating.

Our investigation found that the reason for this classification was that drug paraphernalia was found during a routine search of the cell Mr C shared with another prisoner. Although Mr C said that this belonged to his cell mate, the prison service provided reasonable evidence of their suspicion that Mr C had been a participant, and we did not uphold his complaint. We also noted, however, that the decision on Mr C's security category was kept under review and that he had since been re-categorised with a low rating.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner in a closed prison, complained that the Scottish Prison Service were unreasonably holding him back from progressing to less secure conditions.

A prisoner must meet standard criteria before the risk management team (RMT) will consider his application for progression. The RMT at the closed prison are responsible for deciding whether or not a prisoner can progress to less secure conditions. In Mr C's case, we did not uphold his complaint as our investigation highlighted that he did not meet the standard criteria for progression and because of that, his application could not be referred to the RMT for consideration.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he had asked the prison to provide some items of clothing but they had not done so. Prisons have to satisfy certain clothing needs if a prisoner does not have such items him or herself, and they should provide enough such items for one to be worn while another is being, or is waiting to be, washed or cleaned.

In Mr C's case, we did not uphold his complaint, as our investigation established that nothing that the prison were required to provide was outstanding. For example, they were not required to provide sportswear (which he had requested), and he already had two pairs of footwear.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to consult with the local community when they imposed a planning obligation on a developer. He said that the community should be consulted and have a say on where the resources agreed as part of this planning obligation should be allocated.

The council had explained to Mr C that planning obligations are imposed on developers to mitigate against the direct impact a development may have on an area. This could include the impact on infrastructure, local facilities or the environment, and in this case the planning obligation was to mitigate against environmental impact. They also explained that planning law and the relevant Scottish Government planning circular did not require consultation with the community when setting planning obligations.

We considered the information submitted in support of the complaint and the council's response, and reviewed the relevant legislation and planning circulars. Having done so, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as our investigation found that what the council had said was correct, and that there was no duty on them to consult the community in this respect.