Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that he had unreasonably been denied access to a course at the college. We reviewed the college's applications policy, the entry requirements for the course, and a number of other policies. We found that there was no evidence that the college failed to follow the procedures in considering and rejecting Mr C's application. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

During our investigation, the college explained that they were going to be reviewing the appeals process as a consequence of this complaint. We asked to be informed of the results of this review.

Summary

Mr C, who was studying a one-year postgraduate course, complained that the university failed to follow compensation criteria as set out in a programme handbook. Compensation is where a failed module can be converted to a pass in certain circumstances. Mr C said that a decision should have been taken at the first exam board of the academic year to compensate him for one module.

We found that the programme handbook did not specify whether compensation should be applied at the first or second exam attempts and that it did not specify whether compensation decisions should be taken at the first or second exam board. Decisions on whether and when to apply compensation were for the exam board to take. There was no evidence in the programme handbook to support Mr C's opinion, and Mr C's disagreement with the university's decisions and with their interpretation of matters was not, of itself, evidence of an administrative failing on the university's part. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. He felt that the university handled his complaint carelessly and that there was prejudice or bias against him. He said that the university were mistaken about the subject of his complaint, despite him reminding them, and that the university's investigation focused on irrelevant issues and took a different direction from his submitted complaint.

We found that the university's complaint investigators took Mr C's complaint seriously, and investigated it thoroughly and objectively. Having read the complaint Mr C submitted, and the notes of two meetings he had with the investigators, it was clear the university investigated the complaint Mr C made, dealt with the issues he raised, and provided reasonable explanations. Mr C's disagreement with the university's decisions and their interpretation of matters was not, of itself, evidence of an administrative failing on their part. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the university failed to notify her within a reasonable timescale of the registration fees required for her to proceed with her university course, failed to provide her with reasonable alternative payment options, gave her inconsistent advice about her progress on the course and did not provide her with suitable adaptations for her health conditions.

We found that the university acted reasonably and in line with their guidance documents when they provided support and information to Mrs C about the progression of her course. We found no evidence that the university had not notified her within a reasonable timescale of the required fees. However, the university did offer to provide a rebate for part of her fees in recognition of Mrs C's confusion about this. We found no evidence that Mrs C was prevented from paying her fees in instalments.

We found that Mrs C was aware that her progress on the course had encountered some difficulties and that staff had tried to support her. While Mrs C was told she was performing well enough to progress to other parts of the course, she later failed it. We did not consider this to be evidence that she was given inconsistent advice about her overall progress.

We found that there was a delay in providing suitable seating for Mrs C's needs, however this was rectified and an apology was provided.

We did not uphold any of Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C said that other prisoners had given him items of property when they were leaving the prison, but that prison staff had taken the items from him and disposed of them. Mr C complained about this and said that this was, in effect, prison staff stealing his belongings.

We found that the prison rules gave prison staff the authority to search cells and seize unauthorised property. In the prison's view, the items found in Mr C's cell were unauthorised property, within the definition given in the prison rules, rather than authorised personal property. The prison rules also gave prison staff the authority to dispose of or destroy unauthorised property.

We determined that prison staff were acting appropriately within the discretion given to them by the prison rules in searching Mr C's cell, seizing unauthorised property, and disposing of it. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did their assessment of the programmes he was to complete in prison without considering all of the relevant information. He was also unhappy that they had cancelled some of his parent and child visits, which he felt had been unreasonable.

We considered the administrative handling of SPS's programmes assessment. That is because we are not a route for prisoners to appeal SPS's decisions about the programmes they are to complete. We looked at the evidence and it indicated that SPS had handled the matter in line with the relevant guidance. They had recorded the matters they had considered, the evidence reflected the information detailed in the guidance, and there was nothing to indicate that they had failed to consider relevant information. On that basis, we did not uphold Mr C's first complaint.

In terms of Mr C's visits, SPS confirmed that parent and child visits supplemented the visits he was entitled to receive under the prison rules. The paperwork indicated that several steps had to be taken before a prisoner was registered for the parent and child scheme. Mr C had wrongly been put on the scheme before those steps were complete, which was why his visit had been cancelled. SPS had acknowledged and apologised to Mr C for that error. By the time another visit was cancelled several months later, it was because all parent and child visits in a specific session were cancelled for operational reasons and it had not been Mr C's visit that was cancelled specifically on this occasion. We noted that Mr C remained registered for the scheme and could book future visits. Viewed as a whole, the evidence indicated that SPS had made decisions they were entitled to have made, that they explained their reasons to Mr C and that they had apologised for their initial error. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C's complaint concerns an application he made to the government's Rural Payments and Inspections Division for payments under the Basic Payment Scheme (a European Union farming subsidy scheme). Mr C told us that he had inadvertently failed to apply for a top up he was entitled to because he found the government's guidance on applications to be misleading. He had attempted to appeal this decision but the government refused to consider his appeal, as they did not consider they had made a relevant decision under The Rural Payments (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2015. In response to Mr C's complaint, the government accepted that the section of the guidance Mr C had referred to was insufficiently detailed, as it did not mention the top ups in question, but they did not consider it to be inaccurate or misleading.

On reviewing the guidance in place at the time Mr C made his application, we agreed with the government's position. The statement in question failed to mention the top ups, as Mr C had explained. However, this was only part of the introduction to what was extensive guidance on a complex system. When read in full, we considered the guidance clearly explained the top ups and how to apply for these.

We also considered the government's position on Mr C's appeal to be reasonable, although stressed that we could not definitively conclude that it was correct in law, as this was something that could only be confirmed by the courts. For this reason, we did not uphold these complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained about how her application for accessible housing points (points awarded to someone to help them find an alternative property, on the basis that their current home is not suitable for their needs) was assessed.

We found that the council had appropriately arranged for an assessment by an occupational therapist. We found that this was in line with the council's procedures. We also found that, when Ms C had requested another assessment a year later, this was provided. The amount of points awarded was increased following this second assessment, as Ms C's ability to carry out normal tasks in her current home had deteriorated. We considered that this was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C lives in a conservation area. An application for planning permission for the demolition of a section of internal garden wall in a property neighbouring his was submitted to the council. Mr C submitted objections to the proposal. The council produced a report of handling of the application and granted full planning permission. Mr C complained that the report of handling of the application had not been reasonable because the author commented upon the state of repair of the wall having only seen it in photographs. Mr C also complained that the report did not reasonably evaluate the application in line with policy or justify its conclusions. He also complained that the council's responses to his complaints were contradictory and misrepresented both their policies and the significance of the visibility of the wall from public areas.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser, who told us that it was reasonable in the circumstances that the report's author had only seen the wall in photographs. The adviser also gave their view that the council's consideration of relevant policies had been reasonable. We accepted the adviser's views and concluded that the council's evaluation of the application had been reasonable. We did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

We reached the view, taking into account the adviser's opinion, that the council's complaints responses did not misrepresent their policies or the significance of the visibility of the wall. We also concluded that the responses were not contradictory, but that they reasonably addressed the different points Mr C had raised at different stages of the complaints process. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to take enforcement action when a property built on the same development as his property was not in compliance with the planning permission which had been granted, in that it did not provide a reasonable turning area for the development. The council responded to Mr C's complaint and said that the turning area had been assessed since the development had been completed and was determined to be suitable for purpose, despite the fact that it does not fully reflect what was shown on the plans. The council said that the turning area is suitable as it is wider than was originally provided for in the layout plans. Mr C was unhappy with the council's response and he brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council's approach to considering a turning area when granting the planning permission was reasonable and correct. We also found that, with regards to enforcement action, this is a discretionary matter for the council. We concluded that the council had reasonably investigated and assessed Mr C's complaints about the suitability of the turning area. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.