Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the process followed by the adjudicator at his orderly room hearing. He said evidence put forward by him was ignored and his witnesses were not called.

Following our enquiries with the SPS, we were satisfied the adjudicator applied and followed the proper process prior to reaching his decision at Mr C's hearing and we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C alleged that a registered housing support service was operating as an alcohol detox centre. His own organisation offered a detox service, he said, to a high degree of professionalism, whereas the organisation he complained of did not. He said it was being incorrectly marketed. He complained that, when he told the Care Inspectorate about this, they failed to properly investigate his complaint about the organisation and to take appropriate action, including liaising with other bodies.

Our investigation found that the registration of a care service is a legal matter and that the Care Inspectorate were obliged to follow appropriate legal guidelines. When considering an application to them for registration as a housing support service, therefore, the Care Inspectorate were under obligation to do only that. A housing support service is legally defined, so where it appeared, after inspection, that a provider met the required definition, the Inspectorate were obliged to confirm the status sought. In these circumstances, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Since 2010 Mrs C has been concerned about the damage caused to the Meadows and Bruntsfield Links, a public parkland area in Edinburgh, by the use of barbecues. Mrs C has also been concerned about the health and safety implications of the use of barbecues and the disposal of resultant waste, including disposable barbecue trays.

Mrs C corresponded with the council about these concerns, given that the council's Management Rules for Public Parks prohibit the lighting of fires or barbecues without the council's written permission. In 2010 the council implemented a trial scheme to allow barbecues to be used in the park on concrete slabs installed for that purpose. This trial was again implemented in 2011. Mrs C did not feel this improved the situation and lodged a formal complaint in August 2011 that the council were not implementing their Management Rules for Public Parks.

In their response to Mrs C's complaints the council told her that the trial scheme would be reviewed and outlined various actions they would take to manage the situation over the remainder of summer 2011. Mrs C was dissatisfied with their response and raised her complaints with us. We decided that the council's actions had taken into account rule 7 of the Management Rules for Public Parks, which allowed the council to waive any rule at any time and, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that he moved into a flat, unaware that council tax was not included in the rent. He only discovered this when a third party moved in. The council negotiated with Mr C on ways to recover his unpaid council tax, but this was unsuccessful.

We found that Mr C had been given correct information and guidance from the council (which took account of Mr C's specific situation) and that they had followed their procedures correctly. We did not uphold his complaint that the council failed to provide consistent advice on his options to repay his council tax arrears. Neither did we uphold his complaints that the council sent him arrears letters when a repayment plan had been agreed, given that such letters are computer generated when arrears gather, or that the council failed to abide by an alleged agreement they would stop sending him council tax demand letters, as there was no evidence to support this.

Summary
Mr A intended to use the Gourock to Kilcreggan ferry. When he arrived at the terminal it was clear that there was an issue with the operation of the ferry. He enquired about the ferry services for the rest of the day and was advised that the service had been cancelled for the day. As a result he shared a taxi with other passengers to complete his journey. He sought a refund of this expenditure from the ferry operator, Clyde Marine, and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT), on whose behalf the service is operated.

He was advised that the service had not been cancelled for the day, but was suspended between 16:00 and 17:30 and that the final sailing of the day had gone ahead. In these circumstances neither Clyde Marine nor SPT felt it was appropriate to refund the costs of the taxi journey. SPT advised that their conditions of contract specifically removed them from liability in respect of loss arising for the failure to operate journeys and that their investigation had indicated that it had been staff employed by the operator of the pier facilities who had given Mr A the incorrect information about the cancellation of the services, as Mr A had stated in his first correspondence.

Mr A's MSP also complained to SPT about this matter, advising that Mr A had received the information about the cancellation of the service from a helpline operated by Clyde Marine. SPT advised that they had nothing further to add to their previous correspondence. Mr A's MSP raised the matter with the Ombudsman. We decided that as there was no firm, objective evidence of what information Mr A had been given or who by, there would be no practical outcome in our pursuing the matter further. We, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C was the chairman of the board of governors of a registered charity involved in drug rehabilitation. He believed the charity had exemption from paying council tax because of its charitable status and because it refers to a house of multiple occupation. He was unhappy that, as a result of non-payment of council tax, the council passed the arrears to sheriff officers for recovery.

We found that the relevant legislation in this matter was The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended). On examining the legislation we established that it refers to unoccupied dwellings and, therefore, the charity could not be considered to be exempt. We found that the council acted correctly in telling the charity that they were not exempt.
 

Summary
Mr C complained to us about how the council have dealt with delay by a developer in forming a new access road and approving a landscaping scheme for a farm development.

The council refused an application by a developer for planning permission for the erection of new agricultural buildings, the repositioning of some existing agricultural buildings and the formation of a new farm access road. The developer appealed to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA). The appeal was successful, and planning permission was granted subject to several conditions, a number of which related to the formation of a new access road and a landscaping scheme.

Although the new farm complex has been implemented and is now operational neither the new access road nor the landscaping scheme has been completed. Mr C complained that as a result of this, traffic and heavy lorries access the farm using the road which runs in front of a row of former farm cottages where he resides.

Our investigation found that the council are limited in any action they can take to ensure that the developer implements these conditions, because of limitations of the wording of the conditions imposed by the DPEA Reporter, which are ineffective. There was, therefore, no evidence of failings on the part of the council in relation to the matters complained about. However, we have brought our findings on the complaint to the attention of the DPEA, so that they may take account of this when framing conditions in future.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had failed to prepare a development brief for a housing development near to his home. He was of the view that this was in breach of a policy in the local plan. This policy stated that the development must comply with an approved development brief prepared by the council.

The brief was prepared by the developer, in consultation with the council's planning department. Prior to approval, it underwent a period of public consultation after which amendments were made to the brief and the revised document was considered for approval by the Planning Committee.

Mr C considered that the developer's involvement in the preparation of the brief meant that it would be biased in favour of the developer. He considered that this was not what was required in terms of the local plan policy and he was also of the view that the council altered the terms of the development plan without following the correct statutory procedures.

Although the developer was very involved in the preparation of the brief, it was prepared in consultation with the council. The council's Planning Committee had, following public consultation, the right to accept or reject some or all aspects of the brief. As a result, we were satisfied that the final document was prepared and approved by the council and that it was in compliance with the policy in the local plan.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that his dental practice had given him inaccurate information in telling him that work he needed done (template and crown work in preparation for implants) could not be provided on the NHS. Our dental adviser confirmed that the required work would not have been covered by the NHS and so would have to have been done on a private basis. We, therefore, concluded that the practice's response was reasonable.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that his GP failed to diagnose rotator cuff syndrome (damage or dysfunction to one of the rotator cuff muscles which are located in the shoulder area) following a number of visits to the practice. This condition was diagnosed after he changed GP practices. He also complained that he was not provided with appropriate advice and care in relation to his shoulder pain, particularly as he felt that his GP had failed to provide him with information about the availability of an NHS physiotherapy drop-in centre and offer him a steroid injection.

However, following advice obtained from our clinical adviser who had access to Mr C's clinical records and information provided by Mr C's GP, we were of the view that the care and treatment options provided to Mr C were appropriate for his condition. Whilst steroid injections and a surgical referral would have been a further option, the decision to suggest physiotherapy initially was reasonable. Had Mr C stayed with this practice it is likely that these further options would have been considered had Mr C's condition not improved. We, therefore, found that the care and treatment provided were appropriate.