Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had unreasonably refused to allow him to have his bracelet within the establishment.

The prison explained that Mr C's bracelet was large and could potentially be used as a weapon. From our investigation, we were satisfied that this was a decision that the prison were entitled to take and that they had done so appropriately.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison delayed in assessing him for offending behaviour coursework. The prison explained that they prioritise prisoners in line with their progression (movement through the prison system to less supervised conditions) dates. They assured him that he was on the waiting list and would be assessed in due course.

Our investigation found that Mr C was not eligible for parole for another two years and there was sufficient time for him to be assessed for, and access, any required coursework. As we could see no evidence of unreasonable delay, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison refused to locate him next to his friend and also that they inappropriately located him next to individuals with whom he had had issues in the past. When the prison explained to us the reasons for their decisions, we were satisfied that they had taken all relevant factors into account and that the decision had been fully explained to Mr C. We did not uphold the complaint.

In addition, Mr C complained that the prison falsely accused him of being in a relationship with another prisoner, and that they treated his mother unfairly. We found no evidence to support Mr C's position on these matters and we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had charged his business back to a date earlier than when he moved into the property. Our investigation revealed that Business Stream had asked him to provide evidence of the date he moved in but that he had not done so.

We established that, on the basis of the information held by Business Stream, they were correct to bill Mr C back to the date they had used. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that Business Stream failed to let her know when there was an excessive increase in the amount of water they had recorded that she was using on her farm. She said that her complaint about this was not dealt with sympathetically because, although she had queried her bill, a reminder with an additional charge was sent. Mrs C also complained about the charge that she was quoted upfront for the disconnection of one of two meters serving her property.

We did not uphold her complaints. From our investigation we found that, while the statement of account did record that there was a sharp increase in water usage from the bill issued in the previous quarter, Business Stream had carried out an actual once-a-year meter reading three days before the contested bill was issued. They explained that it was open to customers to carry out their own checks on usage by taking and submitting their meter readings.

Further, it was evident that Busines Stream had provided Mrs C with the correct information about the circumstances in which a rebate could be given under their 'burst allowance policy' and why this did not apply in her case. They had responded to her complaint about the issue of a reminder for payment, and had not applied an additional charge.

With regard to the disconnection charges, from checking Business Stream's website it appeared possible that the amount that Mrs C said that she had been quoted for the upfront charges would have been for disconnection of both her meters. In responding to her complaint, they had directed Mrs C to the website. There was no evidence that Business Stream had given Mrs C misinformation about the cost of the deposit, and they have no discretion about the charges as these are based on the cost of providing this service. We directed Mrs C to the website to help her decide whether she wished to proceed with having one of her meters disconnected.

Summary

Ms C complained that Business Stream had wrongly assessed her property as a business and that she was billed according to this. We investigated the complaint and considered all the available information, including Business Stream's complaints file and the bills issued to Ms C. We consulted the appropriate section of the Scottish Assessors Association website (which provides information about properties and rateable values) and Business Stream's billing policy for such properties.

We found that Ms C's property was referred to as a guest house and that its rateable value had been apportioned accordingly (the business element being the greater part). In the circumstances, Business Stream's policy required them to charge appropriately, based on this information. We found that Business Stream were acting in accordance with their policy by charging Ms C, and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C's business moved into new premises on 1 April 2011. He was unaware of his liability to pay for water and waste water services, believing that these were included in utility payments to the landlord. During a routine audit, Business Stream identified the premises as a gap site (a site which had been receiving water without being charged for it). They set up an account for Mr C's business in September 2011 and issued a backdated bill for estimated water usage. Mr C disputed the charges and his account was reassessed. Although his water usage was reassessed and his bills reduced, he complained that he was still required to pay the higher rate for the period prior to reassessment.

We were satisfied that Business Stream followed the correct procedure for reassessing water usage as set out in guidance issued by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. This procedure requires licensed providers to backdate the reassessed rate to the date of the request for reassessment, but does not allow for further backdating. We were satisfied with Business Stream's handling of Mr C's account prior to his reassessment request and found no grounds for further backdating of the reassessed rate.

Summary

Mr C raised his concern about the council's handling of a consultation exercise carried out as part of the statutory process to introduce priority parking in an area of the city. Mr C was dissatisfied that the council started the formal process without carrying out informal consultation. In addition, Mr C was felt it was unreasonable that the council had not explained in advance the basis on which the decision on priority parking would be made following the formal consultation exercise.

During our investigation the council explained that it would have been preferable to have carried out informal consultation. However, in this case they had decided to proceed to the formal consultation which effectively served the same purpose and would allow the views of residents to be taken into account. As we did not find that anything had gone wrong in reaching this decision, which was one they were entitled to take, we could not challenge it.

We found no evidence that the council were required to explain the basis upon which a decision would be made, in advance of the formal consultation. In this case, the council had explained why the findings of any consultation exercise could not be determined in advance. We found no evidence that the council had acted unreasonably in this case.

Summary

Mrs C was the owner-occupier of a flat underneath a council property. She regularly reported to the council that the actions of the tenant above caused her nuisance. Her reports mainly concerned her neighbour pacing the floor for prolonged periods, the constant drone of a television which was occasionally turned up to a high volume and clearly audible telephone conversations. The council visited Mrs C's property on numerous occasions and installed a noise recording system in her home for a week, but did not find evidence of antisocial noise.

Mrs C considered that the council's actions were inadequate and thought that they should install additional sound insulation between the flats. She asked us to investigate a number of points, including the level of noise required before the council take action; the council saying that the costs for potential work on other properties were a reason for not doing work on hers; the council's consideration of her human rights; and the response times to her noise complaints.

After considering the council's comments, actions and obligations, we found that the council acted reasonably in relation to all of the above points so we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about how the council handled a request from one of his neighbours for a disabled parking bay. Mr C complained that the council failed to follow due process in placing the disabled parking bay outside his house. He also complained about the council's handling of his representations on the matter.

During our investigation of the complaint we found no evidence that the council had failed to follow the correct process when considering the request for a disabled parking bay, as they were only obliged to consult with the applicant. We were also satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the council had responded to Mr C's representations on the issue of the disabled parking bay.