Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mrs C was providing the catering for a dinner function, when she learned from Scottish Water that the water supply had become contaminated with aluminium. This meant that the food, which had been prepared using tap water, was unusable. Scottish Water rejected Mrs C's subsequent claim for compensation for loss of staff wages and revenue etc.

We explained to Mrs C that our role in compensation matters is restricted to considering whether the body in question handled the claim reasonably - for example, whether they took account of relevant factors. In this case, the advice from Scottish Water's legal advisers to Scottish Water was that the claim was for pure economic loss and that the law did not require them to pay compensation for that type of loss.

It was not for this office to determine whether the loss was pure economic loss or, indeed, whether the legal advice was accurate. We did not uphold the complaint because, in seeking legal advice, we considered that Scottish Water had considered the claim reasonably.
 

Summary
Mr C complained because he said his parole information was not delivered to him in the normal way - it was hand delivered by a unit manager instead of being sent in an envelope. Mr C also said he was not given enough time to submit his representations to the Parole Board and that his complaint was not considered properly by the prison.

Normally, the prison receives three copies of a prisoner's parole dossier from the Parole Unit - one copy is for the early release liaison officer or the life liaison officer and the other copies are for the prisoner. The copies for the prisoner are stamped 'parole' and are hand delivered to the mail office to be sent to the prisoner using the same process used to deliver legal mail to prisoners.

In Mr C's case, he received a letter from the Parole Unit telling him that his case would be considered by an Extended Sentence Prisoner Tribunal and a copy of his parole dossier was provided. This information was delivered to Mr C in line with the normal process. However, the following month, the Parole Unit wrote to Mr C again to tell him the information provided in the original letter was incorrect because his case would be considered at a casework meeting, not a tribunal. The letter also told Mr C his dossier was the same as the one provided with the original letter. This is the information that was hand delivered to Mr C by a unit manager.

The prison told us they hand delivered Mr C's letter and parole dossier - provided by the Parole Unit in the later month - because the early release liaison officer who would normally deal with it was on leave and also because of the short timescale involved until Mr C's representations were to be received by the Parole Board. The prison advised this office that using the normal process would have delayed getting the information to Mr C by another 24 hours.

We were satisfied the prison used their discretion in taking the decision to hand deliver the letter and dossier to Mr C and their actions were reasonable. The information available also confirmed that Mr C was aware of the contents of his dossier from the original letter. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We also decided that the prison provided a reasonable response to Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not have a supplier in place to enable him to buy ethnic DVDs and CDs.

Our enquiries confirmed the SPS did have a supplier that was able to provide ethnic DVDs and CDs. All prisoners were able to purchase DVDs and CDs from the supplier. In attempting to resolve Mr C's complaint, the prison also put in place a number of DVDs and CDs that would be available for him to access through the prisoner library.

The fact Mr C did not like the titles of the DVDs and CDs available from the supplier did not mean the SPS were failing to provide him with DVDs and CDs to meet his own requirements. Therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, was suspected of smoking in the toilet area of his workshed and because of this, he was placed on report for breaking prison rules and removed from the work party. At the Orderly Room hearing (a disciplinary hearing to decide whether a prisoner is guilty of breaking prison rules) Mr C was found 'not guilty' because there was not enough evidence.

Mr C then complained about his removal from the work party. As a result, the prison reinstated him to the work party and paid him the wages he would have earned had he not been removed. In bringing his complaint to this office, Mr C complained that the prison failed to fully compensate him for loss of earnings by not awarding him the bonus payment after upholding his complaint that he was unfairly removed from his work party.

Our enquiries confirmed the prison did not put Mr C back to the work party because they agreed with him that he had been unfairly removed. Mr C incorrectly assumed this. Instead, the prison took the decision to return Mr C to the work party because of the outcome of the Orderly Room hearing. There was no requirement for the prison to do this. It was also clear there was no obligation for the prison to reimburse Mr C the wages. In doing both of these things the prison used its discretion. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that the prison failed to adequately record property handed in from his partner and, as a result, it was not clear what had happened to the property. However, the officer who Mr C said his partner had handed in the property to said that his partner had not had the required proforma and, therefore, the property could not be accepted.

Although we tried to contact them, we were unable to discuss the matter with Mr C’s partner. We made an enquiry to the Scottish Prison Service for further information. Following consideration of the complaint on the basis of the available information, there was no evidence to support Mr C's version of events over the prison's, therefore, we were unable to uphold his complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, was restrained by staff and removed from the hall. Mr C was unhappy with the way staff restrained him and he complained to the Governor. The Governor responded but Mr C was unhappy with the response. He complained to us and said the Governor failed to respond reasonably to his complaint.

We looked at the Governor's response to Mr C. We also reviewed the relevant paperwork the Governor considered before responding to Mr C's complaint. In our view, the Governor's response was clear and reasonable and, therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained on behalf of clients (Messrs A) about Business Stream Ltd's decision not to reduce the size of their water meter. He claimed that the decision was unreasonable and that it was financially motivated.

On investigating the complaint, we made enquiries of Business Stream. We found from them that although Scottish Water had originally intended to reduce the size of Messrs A's meter, they had changed their decision after assessing it. On assessment, Scottish Water found that the current meter was the most appropriate for the property and that it complied with the water meter policy and met the British Standard. They advised Business Stream accordingly who, in turn informed Messrs A.

During the investigation, we established that when Mr C complained, Business Stream had provided Scottish Water with all the information he provided and they reconsidered the matter. Nevertheless, they maintained the decision they had originally made. Business Stream confirmed this decision to Mr C.

Having taken into account all the information, we concluded that Mr C, on behalf of Messrs A, was attempting to appeal Business Stream's final decision and not pointing to an error in the way it was reached. It is not for our office to question the merits of a decision where there is no evidence that anything went wrong in taking it, nor is it our role to act as an appeal body for decisions. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr and Mrs C are council tenants. They complained that the council made a mistake in the sale of their neighbour's house under the Right to Buy legislation by including a piece of their garden ground. When we investigated, it was clear that the occupier of the neighbouring property had purchased his house with the piece of land which the complainants claimed should be part of their garden ground.

The council did put up a new dividing fence a few years ago and re-positioned it on the boundary line which the complainants claimed is correct. The council had explained to the complainants that this was done in error, but the complainants did not accept this, complaining that their privacy and amenity would be affected. We did not uphold the complaint because it was evident that the complainants had accepted their tenancy with the garden ground they previously enjoyed and the new dividing fence had been put up in error.

Summary
Mr C lives in a sheltered housing complex and is required to pay housing support charges. His complaint related to the introduction of the Supporting People Scheme in 2003 which introduced a separate charging regime for housing support. Mr C complained that because he was a tenant prior to 2003, he should have been awarded protected tenancy status and should not have had to pay separate housing support charges. He complained he had never been assessed as being liable to pay the charges and that the council had provided contradictory information about the scheme.

Our investigation found that the protected tenancy status applied to those tenants of rent pooling landlords and that it had been introduced to ensure that those tenants were not paying the additional charge in addition to rent and services charges which they already paid. As Mr C was not a tenant of a rent pooling landlord he should not have been afforded protected tenancy status. During the investigation, we were provided with evidence demonstrating that Mr C had been offered a number of assessments and that the council had offered to meet with him to explain the supporting people scheme. We, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mrs C, a solicitor, brought a complaint on behalf of her client (Mrs A). An application for the development of a property neighbouring that of Mrs A was submitted in mid-2010. Mrs A objected to this application. In late August 2010 the application was approved.

Mrs C complained to the council that they did not reasonably consider the planning application – she said there were inaccuracies in the application paperwork concerning the width of a roadway. The council advised that while the location plan showed the roadway as being 2 metres wider than was accurate, the detailed plan showed an accurate width of the roadway. Mrs A was dissatisfied with this response and raised this complaint with us.

We found that as the detailed plan was accurate and objections relating to the width of the roadway were noted in the report by the committee who determined the application, there was no evidence of the maladministration or service failure alleged and did not uphold the complaint.