Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said that two of his requests to have items of mail sent by recorded delivery were unreasonably delayed because of the process that was in place at the prison.

The prison explained that if a prisoner wants to have an item of mail sent by recorded deliver, the cash office must receive their request by 16.00 on a Wednesday. This allows the cashier enough time to process the request and have the item of mail ready for posting on the Friday. Another member of staff then takes such items of mail to the post office on the Friday.

During our investigation, we asked the prison why requests could not be dealt with more than once a week. The prison explained that because the process involved a member of staff leaving the prison to go to the post office, it was time consuming and impacted on staff resourcing. They were satisfied that doing this once a week was enough. In light of this information, we were satisfied that Mr C's requests to have items of mail sent by recorded delivery were dealt with appropriately by the prison in line with the procedure in place.

Summary

Mrs C's mother purchased parts of a property a few weeks before her death. The application to transfer title was, however, incorrectly submitted and Mrs C's mother was registered as proprietor of the whole property, rather than only parts of it. Mrs C's mother's solicitors realised the error when they received the Land Certificate, by which point Mrs C's mother had passed away. They asked Registers of Scotland (RoS) how this could be corrected. RoS explained that this would be a two-part process. Firstly the title would be restored to the former proprietor and then, on receipt of the correct forms and information, the relevant parts would be registered to Mrs C's late mother. The first part was undertaken by RoS, who then awaited receipt of the correct forms and information. Although they sent several reminders, RoS never received the these, so title to the property has remained with the previous proprietor.

Mrs C complained to RoS that one of their officers inaccurately said that the reversion of title to the previous proprietor had been done in conjunction with Mrs C's mother's solicitors. RoS explained that they had begun the two-part process to correct the incorrect registration as a direct response to a request from Mrs C's mother's solicitors. Mrs C was dissatisfied with this response and raised her complaints with us.

In our investigation we carefully considered this complaint and the relevant papers. We decided that the response had made it clear that the actions to begin the process of altering the title deeds had been a direct response to the solicitors' request for information about this process, and that RoS had the right to take this forward. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) unreasonably stated that they had an interest in an area of amenity land they were considering selling when, in his opinion, this was not the case. He was of the view that they claimed this in order to put the land on the open market and increase the value. He also felt that HIE unreasonably sold the land to a developer and so failed to protect the future amenity value of the land for the community.

We found that there was interest in the land from other parties and, as a result, HIE were correct in what they said. We also noted that the designation of land is a responsibility of the council and not HIE. We found that a decision not to attempt to try and control future use of the land through a no-development clause in the sale agreements was reasonable. As the actions take by HIE were reasonable, and as we found no evidence of administrative failure in the way they dealt with this matter, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C phoned Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) in June 2007 to complain about unauthorised tree felling. He complained that, at the time, the officer concerned failed to make appropriate follow-up enquiries, and that, although correct information eventually became available in August 2007, the officer failed to report the matter to the procurator fiscal.

Our investigation found that when the officer spoke to the tree fellers, he was led to believe that they were working on behalf of Scottish Power. He understood that they were working within their remit and so a tree felling licence was not necessary.

The same officer later became involved in the investigation of a further incident and, in November 2007, Scottish Power confirmed that they had not been engaged in any tree felling in June 2007. (Mr C had told us that he believed that this information in fact came to light in August 2007. Our investigation into the documentary evidence, however, revealed that an email sent from Scottish Power included a date that had been written in American formatting - ie with the month preceding the day.) The officer discussed the changed circumstances with his manager, and decided that, due to the passage of time and the fact that they were unlikely to be able to establish the amount of wood involved, they should instead focus on pursuing the most recent allegation of unauthorised felling. This more recent incident was ultimately reported to the procurator fiscal.

Ultimately, Mr C was unhappy with FCS's decision. Taking into account the information provided by both parties and the relevant legislation, we concluded that this was a discretionary decision that FCS was entitled to take. We cannot look at such decisions if there is no evidence that something has gone wrong when taking them and, as we found no evidence of failure in that respect, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C is the manager of a facility catering for young people which is subject to regular inspection, initially by the Care Commission and, since 1 April 2011, by the Care Inspectorate. His complaint related to an incident that occurred during an inspection by Care Commission officers when he queried the lead officer's authorisation to inspect documents relating to one of his employees. As a result of the inspection, Mr C's facility was given what he considered to be ridiculously low gradings. Mr C complained that the Care Commission's inspection and subsequent report into his facility had been inadequate and that the Care Commission and Care Inspectorate failed to adequately handle his complaints.

Our investigation found that the Care Commission had followed their normal inspection process and the process of sharing their draft inspection report. We found no evidence of inadequacy in the handling of Mr C's complaint by the Care Commission or the review of complaint handling by the Care Inspectorate.

Summary

Mrs C lives in an area served by a passenger ferry service. Mrs C and a number of other users were concerned about the re-tendering exercise for this service. This was carried out by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) who were responsible for subsidising the service. Mrs C complained that SPT failed to provide adequate specification in the tender documents that the vessel to be deployed should be of modern public transport quality, and awarded the contract to the successful bidder primarily with regard to savings in costs and not on passenger safety and comfort. She also said that SPT had not fully responded to questions that she and others raised.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that the tender documents had specified a size and class of vessel, and required that the vessel deployed should be licensed by the Marine and Coastguard Agency (MCA) for safety and seaworthiness purposes. The successful bidder was not required to supply a new or modern vessel. The incumbent operators, who had been using a vessel built in 2007, were unsuccessful in their bid by a substantial margin. We also noted that the award of the contract had been examined separately by Audit Scotland, who had made no criticism of SPT's procurement process.

In response to considerable public interest in the tendering process, SPT had published a question and answer sheet, and had updated this when further questions arose. On balance, we did not uphold this complaint as we found that only two of the six specific questions raised by Mrs C in her correspondence had not received an answer. This was because one was treated as a comment because of the way Mrs C had written it, and the other was a matter for the MCA rather than SPT.

Summary

Mr C was refused planning permission for an extension to his house and the erection of garages and a shed. He asked for a review of the decision, and this was carried out by the local review board at a site visit. The board decided to uphold the decision to refuse the planning permission. They said this was because the proposal did not comply with the local development plan. The decision notice explained that Mr C had a right of appeal to the Court of Session if he wished to question the decision. Mr C complained to us that there had been procedural fault at the local review board, and that there was delay and failure to handle his complaint in accordance with the council's complaints procedure.

During our investigation we found that some of Mr C's complaints had not been through the councils' complaints procedures. In others, we saw no evidence of fault in the council's handling of the matter. He had complained that the local review board failed to discuss relevant information about his development and were inconsistent in their decision to refuse his application, but we found that the council had investigated and responded to this complaint. In terms of his concerns about the decision, the council said that they considered these were matters for appeal to the Court of Session. We are unable to investigate where there is a right of appeal or recourse to the courts.

We found that there was no delay by the council in responding to Mr C's complaint, and that it was handled properly under the council's complaints procedure.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council that a dusty black deposit had developed throughout her home over the past few years. She asked the council to investigate this, and later complained that they did not take enough action to identify its source.

Our investigation found that the council visited and suggested that the source of the black substance might be related to a nearby dual carriageway and they sealed a vent. They also said it might be from candles and incense that council officers saw above the radiators in various rooms. The council had the substance tested by a laboratory but this did not identify for certain what it was or where it was coming from. However, they were of the view that it had not come from the fabric of the building, as it had not penetrated the wallpaper. The council then told Ms C that if she wanted any further tests to be carried out, she would have to pay for them. They said, however, that if she did so and the source was something to do with the structure of the building, they would reimburse her for any costs if the work was done by an accredited contractor.

As well as having the substance tested at a laboratory, we found that the council had visited Ms C's home several times, and had arranged for her gas fire to be checked. We did not uphold her complaint, as we found that they had taken reasonable steps to have the matter investigated.

Summary

Mr C complained about school admission arrangements. He said that the council had failed to acknowledge the disruption caused by a change to established admission arrangements, failed to consult with directly affected families or other relevant parties about the changes; and had relied on flawed catchment map evidence. He said that the council had previously admitted children from neighbouring houses to a particular school but that when he applied for a place there for his child, he was told that his home was in fact in the catchment area for another school. Mr C claimed that the previous admissions constituted an 'arrangement' as defined by the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 (the Act), and that by altering it, the council were required to consult on it, or to recognise that Mr C's child should have been granted a place.

Defining whether or not the actions of the council constituted an admission arrangement as defined by the Act is a role that can only be performed by a court of law. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as our investigation found that children from Mr C's area had in fact previously been allocated there in error, and that Mr C's home had correctly been identified as in the catchment area for a different school. Mr C also complained that the council had been relying on faulty catchment area maps, and that they could not be certain that his property was not in the catchment area for the school of his choice. In support of this argument he said that the original maps defining catchment areas were damaged. We did not uphold this complaint, after visiting the council and viewing the maps showing catchment areas. We confirmed that the relevant maps did not show Mr A's property to be in the catchment area for his preferred school.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C, who are housing association tenants, arranged for the association to work on their heating system. This work required the removal and refitting of carpet.

Mr and Mrs C complained that the association unreasonably damaged their carpet and failed to refit it properly following the works. They complained that newspapers beneath the carpet and underlay had been removed but not replaced, and that sections of carpet were removed when it was refitted. They were particularly concerned that sections of underlay, which they said was of a special type, were removed at the doorways. Although this had been an upsetting matter for Mr and Mrs C, the original carpet fitter's manager stated that the underlay had actually been of a standard kind.

The association had also obtained advice from an independent carpet retailer about appropriate practice for underlay and thresholds. This advice confirmed that underlay should not be fitted beneath a threshold bar as had originally been done and that the carpet fitter, when refitting the carpet, had followed accepted practice. Sections of the carpet were removed as part of the 'stretching' process when relaying the carpet, something that the association indicated had not been done when the original carpet was laid.

While noting that it would have been reasonable for the carpet fitter, in anticipation of Mr and Mrs C's potential concerns, to have explained what he was doing, our investigation found no evidence to indicate that anything other than accepted practice had been followed. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.