Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C attended a NHS dentist for treatment. While there, she asked for some minor remedial work to a denture that was made at a private practice. Mrs C complained that the dentist had removed extensive material from the denture making it sharp, uneven, and unwearable. Mrs C also complained that the dentist failed to properly handle her complaint.

We did not find anything lacking in the dentist's handling of Mrs C's complaint. The evidence showed that the dentist responded to the correspondence within a reasonable timescale, offered an appointment to discuss the complaint in more detail, fully explained her position, offered to discuss the matter with Mrs C's private dentist, and offered to arrange for another dentist in the practice to reline her denture.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about his health care treatment in prison. He was unhappy that the doctor would not prescribe him with sleeping medication.

In Mr C's case, the medical records showed that he had been prescribed a three night course of sleeping medication, offered non medication alternatives including smoking cessation advice and sleep hygiene advice and had his case referred to a consultant psychiatrist for review.

In light of this, and on the advice of our medical adviser, we were satisfied that the treatment provided to Mr C was reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that a particular training course should not be broadly eligible for Individual Learning Account (ILA) Scotland funding because it was a statutory requirement for anyone employed in a particular industry. He said that clause 7 of ILA Scotland’s Operational Rules states that learning which is a statutory requirement for the individual’s employment is not eligible for this funding. Skills Development Scotland, however, advised Mr C that the eligibility for such funding in fact depended upon the nature of the individual applicant's employment.

Mr C disagreed with this and raised his complaint with us. We did not, however, uphold it as we agreed that the fact that a training course was a statutory requirement for those in particular jobs did not preclude those not employed in such roles from undertaking the training.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the process applied by the adjudicator at his disciplinary hearing. A disciplinary hearing is held to determine whether a prisoner has broken prison rules and to impose an appropriate punishment if proven.

In particular, Mr C said the adjudicator told him he would be finding him 'guilty' before the witness was called to give evidence. As well as calling the witness, the adjudicator viewed CCTV footage. We were satisfied the adjudicator followed the appropriate process, and that he reached his verdict after considering the relevant evidence available.

Mr C also complained because he said the SPS failed to properly consider his complaint. In particular, Mr C said the response he received referred to him calling a prisoner as a witness, rather than an officer. We found that the use of word ‘prisoner’ was inaccurate, but we did not believe that this brought the SPS’s consideration of Mr C's complaint, or the decision they reached, into doubt.

Summary
Ms C complained that Scottish Water pipes ran across her land but that Scottish Water were not paying her for use of it. She said that an electricity company paid her in respect of cables and pylons on her land. She also complained that Scottish Water staff accessed her land without notice, which had serious implications in respect of the dogs and horses on the land.

We confirmed to Ms C that Scottish Water had correctly explained the legal situation regarding payment for use of land in these circumstances, and they were not required to pay her. We explained that regulatory and legislative requirements for the water industry are not always the same as those for the gas and electricity industries.

We also explained to Ms C that Scottish Water had the right to access her land without notice in emergency situations but that, in other cases, they had to give 24 hours' notice. However, there was no evidence that Ms C had reported any incidents of access without notice before she submitted her complaint. Scottish Water also told us that she had confirmed verbally to them that she had not made any such reports. This meant that it was not possible for either Scottish Water or this office to investigate what had happened (for example, whether anyone who had accessed her land without permission had, in fact, been a Scottish Water employee). However, we were satisfied that Scottish Water had given Ms C appropriate advice about contacting their call centre as soon as any such incident happened and that they had reminded relevant staff of the requirement to give notice.

Summary
Miss C complained that her shower and some other appliances were damaged when she turned them on one morning. Her plumber said the problem appeared to be a surge of water pressure. Scottish Water had told her they had turned off the water supply in a nearby road the day before because of a burst water main. Miss C thought that her problem must have happened because of the supply being turned off and then on again, and she submitted a claim for compensation to Scottish Water. She complained to us that they had refused to pay compensation.

Scottish Water provided information to Miss C and to us, explaining in detail how they had investigated this matter and why they did not consider that the damage had been caused by a pressure surge. For example, they said that if there had been a pressure surge strong enough to cause damage, they would have had calls about it the same day, whereas no one else had called. Additionally, Miss C's problem only started the next day. They also gave details showing that the operatives who had repaired the burst water main had followed all relevant procedures when switching the supply back on, to minimise any pressure surge.

We also explained to Miss C that our role in complaints about compensation was very limited. For example, we could not decide whether compensation should be paid. We could only consider whether Scottish Water had properly investigated her claim. In the light of all the information they provided, we considered that they had done so.

Summary
Mr C complained that Scottish Water had not offered him enough compensation after he experienced a sewage flood into his home. We explained to him that our role in compensation claims is very limited and, in particular, that it is not for us to decide whether compensation should be paid or the amount, which is normally a matter for the courts. We looked at Scottish Water's complaints file, which confirmed that the matter was not one that we could look into.

Summary
Mr C complained that Scottish Water were not supplying water to a stopcock at the boundary of his new property. He said that he was getting his water through a supply pipe that passed through his neighbours’ homes. However, we found that Scottish Water are only responsible for the water main and the communication pipe up to and including the boundary of the road. Many properties have a shared water supply and are not connected directly to the communication pipe. In such properties, the owners of the properties are responsible for the shared supply pipe.

Some of Mr C’s pipes were made of lead, which is no longer considered to be appropriate. Scottish Water told Mr C to apply to have his pipes replaced. They said that he would have to install a new supply pipe to the property boundary, and they would then connect the property to the main pipe free of charge. Mr C said that he sent the application form to Scottish Water, but they lost it. We found no evidence that Scottish Water had lost the form or that their communication with him was poor.

Mr C also said that Scottish Water told him that they would arrange for water and sewerage charges to be taken off his council tax bill. He said that he had been unable to use these services when he first moved into the property. We did not find any evidence that Scottish Water told Mr C that he would receive a refund of the charges, or that they subsequently changed their mind about this.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained after he was found guilty of assaulting another prisoner. Mr C said he was originally reported for fighting, but the charge was changed to him assaulting the prisoner. Mr C said he was unaware of the change because he was only given notice of the charge moments before his disciplinary hearing was about to take place. (A disciplinary hearing is held to determine whether a prisoner has broken prison rules and to impose an appropriate punishment if proven.) He said he did not check the notice because he assumed it confirmed he was placed on report for fighting and because of that, Mr C said he plead guilty unknowingly to assault.

The evidence available confirmed that, on the day of the incident, Mr C was reported by an officer for assaulting another prisoner. The notice of the charge was served to Mr C the next morning but he refused to acknowledge receipt of this. The evidence also confirmed that the notice was served to Mr C just over two hours before his disciplinary hearing was to take place. The prison rules confirm that written notice of the charge should be received by the prisoner at least two hours before the hearing. Therefore, we were satisfied the Scottish Prison Service handled Mr C's case appropriately and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to properly investigate his complaint following an altercation he had with his cell-mate.

When we investigated, the prison explained that two officers and a line manager interviewed Mr C following the incident. They provided a copy of the written report that confirmed this. We were satisfied that Mr C's concerns had been properly considered and an explanation had been provided for the actions taken. We did not uphold the complaint.