Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison refused to allow him to buy adult magazines. The prison confirmed to us that the requested material was not permitted and they explained the rationale behind this. They advised that this policy had recently undergone a thorough review. Although Mr C raised concerns about the policy not being applied consistently throughout the prison, we could find no evidence of this. As the governor has discretion as to which items to allow in their prison, and as the prison clearly advised Mr C of their position on the matter, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison were restricting his access to the complaints process. Mr C said complaint forms were not readily available and that some forms were withheld by staff. He also said there was no information displayed about the complaints process or the disciplinary appeals process. Mr C said he was also waiting to receive complaints back from the prison which had exceeded the timescale.

We explored the issues raised by Mr C with the prison. The prison advised that all residential areas were checked and details of the complaints process were prominently displayed and complaint forms were readily available. The prison was also unable to comment on Mr C's claims that some complaints were withheld by staff because he had not identified any individuals. However, the prison did advise that staff were spoken to and assured that complaint forms were dealt with appropriately. The prison also checked the record of Mr C's received complaints and advised that all of complaints had been responded to and returned to him. We did not uncover any evidence to suggest that Mr C's access to the complaints process was being restricted and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who was a prisoner, received a copy of his integrated case management (ICM) case conference minute and was unhappy with some of the content. In particular, he was concerned about comments made about him by a member of staff. Mr C raised his concerns with the prison but was unhappy with the steps that they took to address his complaint. Because of that, Mr C complained to us that the prison failed to investigate his complaint appropriately.

It was clear Mr C had concerns about the information recorded in his case conference minute, the steps taken by the prison to address his concerns and the involvement of the member of staff that Mr C felt made inappropriate comments about him. However, having explored Mr C's concerns further with the prison during our investigation, we were satisfied they took appropriate steps to record his representations about his case conference minute and investigate his concerns. We were also satisfied the prison had addressed Mr C's concerns about the comments made about him by the member of staff. Because of this, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had failed to record the circumstances of an assault upon him by another prisoner. In bringing his complaint to this office, Mr C said the governor of the prison failed to ensure his complaint was properly investigated and responded to.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we were satisfied that the governor had taken appropriate steps to investigate Mr C's concerns that the prison failed to record the circumstances of the alleged assault. We also satisfied that the governor's response was appropriate. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

In June 2011, Business Stream told Mr C that there was a leak in his water supply. He tried to establish its source but by October 2011 had been unable to do so. He said that he thought that the leak would equate to a dripping tap. In November 2011, Business Stream told him that he was to receive a large bill and, the same day, issued a bill for more than £20,000. Mr C complained that although Business Stream were aware of the water leak in June 2011, they failed to tell him of its extent which meant that by the time of their November 2011 bill, he had accumulated a large debt.

We investigated the complaint and obtained Business Stream's complaint file, all relevant correspondence, Mr C's bills and meter readings together with copies of the applicable legislation. We found that when Mr C was told about the leak, under the applicable legislation and terms and conditions, he was responsible for finding and fixing it. He had been unable to do so and in October 2011, he told Business Stream who suggested that he seek Scottish Water's assistance.

Scottish Water found the leak and repaired it at Mr C's expense. Mr C's bill was not sent out until Business Stream established that it was correct. While Mr C was unhappy to receive such a large bill, we found that it was clearly his responsibility to find and repair the leak at his own cost. As he did not so until the end of October 2011, Business Stream could not be held responsible for the cost of the water that had leaked away. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C said that until Business Stream contacted him, he was unaware of his liability to pay water/waste charges to them. He said he had asked for a site visit but no-one came. He then received a bill backdated to May 2008 but the supply address was incorrect and he was concerned that he was being charged for the wrong premises. He said he had been in the same premises since 2007 and did not understand why it had taken Business Stream so long to realise he was there. He also said that they had given him conflicting information by assuring him that his account was on hold while his complaints were looked into, then pursuing him for payment and charges.

From 1 April 2008 all businesses with a water/waste supply are obliged to register with a licensed provider and pay for their service. The fact that Mr C was unaware of his responsibility to do so does not affect the fact that he is liable for water charges. We found no evidence that he had requested a site visit or of any undertaking from Business Stream to perform one. Business Stream said that as another street ran onto the street where Mr C’s premises are located there may have been an input error into their system. They confirmed that the water meter concerned serves only Mr C’s premises, and they amended the address on their system to ensure that the correct address appears on future bills. They also explained that they picked this up during an initiative to identify businesses that were not registered with a licensed provider (in which case Business Stream becomes the licensed provider by default). Business Stream confirmed that Mr C’s account was on hold while his complaints were investigated. We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints as we were satisfied that Business Stream had followed the appropriate procedures.

Summary

Mr C decided to change his licensed provider for water and waste water. Just before the change, Scottish Water replaced the water meter serving his business premises. Mr C complained to Business Stream that he received no advance notice of this, and was unable to check and verify either the final meter reading or that the new meter was set to zero. Business Stream told Mr C that Scottish Water’s actions were acceptable, but Mr C remained concerned that a mistake could have been made, and that his final bill could be incorrect.

Our investigation confirmed that, under the relevant operational code, if Scottish Water wish to change a meter they are required to notify the licensed provider, and give them 20 business days notice. Business Stream confirmed that they had received the appropriate notice, and provided evidence of this. They also confirmed that, under the standard terms and conditions of their agreement with Mr C, neither they nor Scottish Water were required to contact him before the meter exchange took place. However, they were able to ask Scottish Water for access to the removed meter, as it is a requirement that these are retained for six months following an exchange of meter. This showed that the meter reading in Mr C’s final account was correct and that the exchanged meter was set at zero. As there was no requirement to notify Mr C and no evidence to suggest that the billing was incorrect, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C who were housing association tenants raised their concern about the condition of their back garden. A joint visit by the council and the housing association to view the condition of the garden had been carried out in 2007. The complainants were unhappy with that visit and disagreed with the accuracy of the report prepared by the council following the visit in 2007. They were dissatisfied that the council had now advised them that they would not inspect their back garden.

Our investigation found that there was no evidence of maladministration in relation to the council's handling of the matter. The council's social work service had visited the property in 2006 and had made a number of recommendations to the housing association in line with their social work responsibilities. At the request of social work services the council's health and safety adviser had visited the complainants' property in 2007 and had prepared a note of the visit. This was within their remit of giving advice to social work services. While Mr and Mrs C disagreed with the accuracy of the note, the council had confirmed that the officer who had drafted the document had confirmed that it was an accurate record. We advised the complainants that, as this related to a note prepared a number of years ago and as the officer was no longer with the council, further enquiries by this office would not add to the information already available.

We also found it was not within the remit of the council's health and safety service to carry out an inspection of a household at a householder's request and, as a result, the council had advised the complainants that they would not carry out a visit to their property. However, we found that discussions were ongoing between Mr and Mrs C and the housing association, as their landlord in relation to the garden.

Summary

Mr C said that when he moved into his house, he was aware that affordable housing was being built on land behind it. He found out later that this was to be social housing. When building was completed, the council opened a link pathway between the two estates and Mr C said that since then he had been subject to antisocial behaviour from residents of the new estate. He considered that the path was the root of the problem, and asked the council to close it. His request was heard by the council’s leadership panel. It was initially intended that the item about his complaint should be held in private but, on the day, the panel took the decision to hold the meeting in public and he was not notified of this.

We did not uphold the complaint. We found that, in deciding to recommend that the item be held in private, council officers took the view that there was a risk of potential victimisation of Mr C and of others requesting the closure of the lane. We also found, however, that the relevant legislation provides for the holding of council meetings in public, except where the council decides to exclude the public when considering an item that is likely to disclose exempt information. Decisions about whether to consider an item in public or private take place at council meetings. We accepted the view of one of the panel members that the matter was of some local interest and that it would have been inappropriate to hold it in private as it had been discussed several times at tenants' and residents’ association meetings. We also accepted the council’s explanation of why it would have been remiss of them to have encouraged attendance at a meeting where the original decision for discussion in private had been taken to protect the residents making the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council charged him a late renewal fee for his landlord registration, although he had not received email reminders that the council said were issued. The council confirmed that these were issued automatically by the Scottish Government’s online landlord registration system and that nothing had been received from Mr C’s email address saying that they were not delivered.

We were unable to prove or disprove whether the reminder emails were sent and received. However, when we investigated it was clear that it was Mr C’s responsibility to ensure that he renewed his registration in a timely manner. His previous registration in May 2008 was valid for three years. It was, therefore, due for renewal in May 2011. However, we found that he had not contacted the council for advice on the application process until March 2012. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.