Not upheld, recommendations

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, told us that one night, after prisoners were locked in their cells, he was lying on his bed with the covers off. He said he saw an officer, who he thought was female, looking at him through the thin gap at the side of the cell door. Mr C said he jumped out of bed and challenged them. However, he did not get a response and the person left. Mr C complained to us that a member of staff observed him by looking through the gap in his cell door and this was inappropriate. Mr C thought there would be CCTV footage of the incident.

In their response to Mr C's complaint, the prison said that female or male staff looking in cells at any time was not voyeurism, and that prisoners had to be supervised. In response to our enquiries, the prison said it was not normally appropriate to observe prisoners through such a gap. They said, however, that there might be circumstances when this was required, and if so it would be preferable for this to be done by an officer of the same gender, although there was no policy about this. The prison also told us that they could find no information about whether CCTV footage was examined during their investigation of Mr C's complaint, or whether officers and prisoners were questioned about it. The prison said they no longer had footage from the date of the incident.

Without this, there was no evidence to support Mr C's claim that he was observed by a female officer through the gap at the side of his cell door, so we did not uphold his complaint. However, we were not satisfied about the way in which the prison responded to Mr C and we made a recommendation to address this failing.

Recommendation
We recommended that the SPS:
• remind staff that complaints should be dealt with in line with the good practice on investigations outlined in the Staff Guidance on Prisoner Complaints document. Staff should ensure that complaints are investigated thoroughly, checking the available evidence, and responses to prisoners are specific to the complaint made.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that Business Stream's bills for his business premises were inaccurate. He did not have a water meter in the business premises he rented and the original bills were calculated on what Business Stream considered to be the rateable value of the property.

Mr C queried the bills he received and Business Stream referred the matter to Scottish Water for reassessment. Scottish Water told Business Stream that a water meter could not be installed in the property, as Mr C had a shared water supply with another business. However, Scottish Water agreed that he could move to a system of charging based on the estimated consumption at the premises from the date Mr C had written to Business Stream to query the bill. Business Stream also amended the account to reflect the correct rateable value of the property when Mr C informed them that he was only on one floor of the building. This further reduced the bill.

The bills issued by Business Stream correctly reflected the information they held at that time and were in line with the appropriate legislation/guidance. We did not uphold the complaint. However, in view of Mr C's complaint and a previous agreement between him and Business Stream that the account would be put on hold, we asked Business Stream if they would remove a recovery charge of £90 that they had added to the account. Business Stream told us that they are willing to do this.

Summary
Mrs C's daughter has a severe learning disability. For some years, Mrs C has accessed a certain level of respite care for her. When her daughter's respite allocation was reduced, Mrs C raised a number of concerns about the council's handling of the decision to do so. The council's complaints review committee had already considered the complaint, and our investigation was about whether the review committee had followed appropriate procedures and policies and had taken into account all the matters it should have.

Our investigation found that the review committee had been provided with all relevant information, including the information provided by Mrs C, before arriving at their decisions on her complaints. However, it was clear that, while handling Mrs C's representations, some misunderstanding had arisen between the council and Mrs C. This caused Mrs C distress and worry. The council accepted that there was a need for clear and concise information to be conveyed to service users. We also drew their attention to the fact that it is good administrative practice for notes of telephone calls to be taken. Although we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints, we made a recommendation based on her experience of contact with the council about this matter.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• consider whether any lessons can be learnt from the handling of this case.

Summary
Ms C contacted the housing association to discuss the possibility of receiving compensation for the improvements carried out by her mother during her tenancy. The association inspected the property and decided that they could not award compensation. Ms C was unhappy with this and complained to us that the association had failed to deal with her claim appropriately.

Although we do not make rulings on compensation, we looked at the relevant legislation and regulations and concluded that the  association did deal with her claim in a reasonable manner, so we did not uphold the complaint.

Our investigation also found that the minutes of a meeting of the association's sub-committee contained a number of mistakes. We were particularly concerned that they recorded Ms C's mother's name incorrectly and inaccurate information about white goods at the property.

Recommendation
We recommended that the association:
• write to Ms C to apologise for the errors in the minutes of the meeting and, in particular, for using an incorrect name for her mother.

Summary
Ms C was unhappy that she was being charged for the cost of replacing missing radiators in her home when she did not feel that she should be held responsible for these. She complained that the housing association did not take all factors into account when investigating her complaint.

Our investigation found that the association had conducted the investigation properly according to their complaints process, and had taken into account Ms C's representations and relevant documents. However, we made a recommendation relating to the explanations they provide in future.

Recommendation
We recommended that the association:
• review the complaints process to consider making it a requirement that the decision letters give details of how the investigation was conducted and the documents which were taken into consideration in the decision-making.
 

Summary
Mr C complained about the existence or otherwise of planning consent in respect of aggregate recycling activities (AR) adjacent to a housing development. This complaint was originally made against the council on behalf of a residents association. The council said that recycling activities did not require planning consent and this was the reason there was no planning consent in place.

In 2008 the council had said that planning approval was not required as the necessary consent was contained in planning consent granted in 1985. However, Mr C refuted this and said AR was being carried out on land that under previous planning consents should be maintained as agricultural land for animal grazing purposes. He said that the AR was a commercial activity, unrelated to household materials and composting activities, and that planning consent should have been sought. He acknowledged that efforts had been (and continued to be) made to minimise the disturbance and nuisance caused by AR, but he said these did not address the key complaint and he wished the AR activity moved. Mr C also complained that the council delayed in responding to his complaint and had not established the facts or dealt with it appropriately under their complaints procedure.

This matter was complex and during our investigation we made several enquiries of the council. The complaint was also considered by one of our planning advisers.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The passage of time from 1985 to 2011 combined with the loss of part of a file made it difficult to evidence Mr C's view that AR activities (by the definition and degree as outlined in this case to be classed as ancillary) required planning consent that does not exist.

We found evidence that the council had addressed Mr C's concerns about AR – although we acknowledge, not to his satisfaction. We considered that the council exercised professional judgement in this matter and relied on the 1985 consent as being applicable to current AR activities. There is no documented evidence that the AR activities required planning consent and/or that the council overlooked or ignored this issue. Subsequently, there is no evidence that the council failed to ensure that the AR activities had planning consent. We did, however, make one recommendation because of the issues raised by Mr C's complaint.

We considered that the council appropriately addressed the complaints handling issue Mr C raised . We also consider that although Mr C remained dissatisfied with the response, they adequately answered the points he raised.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• consider regularising permission for the landfill site and ensure it covers all ancillary activity with appropriate planning conditions.

Summary
Mr C was unhappy that he was recalled to prison shortly after starting a period of home leave. He was told that he had breached a condition of the licence under which he was granted the leave. Mr C said that this condition had been added to the licence four days after he signed it. He said that he was not aware of the condition.

We found that the condition had been added to the licence after Mr C signed it. However, the licence the prison service gave him before he was released included the condition. We considered that there was an onus on Mr C to ensure that he was aware of the conditions on the licence. It was also clear from the evidence that he did in fact breach the condition. The prison service were correct to say that he had done so.

Mr C also complained that the prison service subsequently wrongly denied him home detention curfew. The prison service’s guidance on home detention curfew states that they should take the fact that a prisoner has failed to comply with a previous licence into account when they are completing the risk assessment for this. There was no evidence of any administrative error by the prison service in reaching their decision. We did not, therefore, uphold this complaint.

Recommendation
We recommended that the SPS:
• ensure that prisoners are asked to sign to confirm that they have been notified of any conditions that are added to a temporary release licence.

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's refusal to renew his zone 2 parking permit in February 2011 despite him having been issued with one on an annual basis since purchasing his property in 1986. Mr C was unhappy that the council issued his neighbour with a zone 2 permit and that there was no clear advice, consultation or notice from the council that they were implementing the change in practice.

We established that the council had been incorrectly issuing Mr C with a zone 2 permit for around 25 years instead of a zone 6 permit to which he was entitled under the applicable Traffic Regulation Order. Therefore, we concluded that the council acted reasonably and appropriately when informing Mr C that he was not entitled to a zone 2 permit. We also considered that there was insufficient evidence to support that the council would have been in a position to consult with Mr C or his neighbours prior to implementing the change in practice. This is because the problem with Mr C's permit was identified when he attempted to renew his permit online after a new IT system had been implemented.

Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, in recognition that he had received a zone 2 permit for the past 25 years and that he wanted to continue with this practice, the council agreed to continue issuing him with a zone 2 permit until amendments have been made to the Traffic Regulation Order.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• remind all staff dealing with permit parking applications to ensure that the correct permits are issued in accordance with the 1973 Order; and
• issue Mr C with a zone 2 permit until the proposed amendments to the 1973 Order have gone through the relevant process.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the prison lost a ring that belonged to him, and were refusing to compensate him for it. When we investigated the complaint, we found that the SPS failed to act in line with the prison rules and SPS procedures. This meant that Mr C's property, including a ring, that was handed in to the prison was not recorded. There was also a failure to thoroughly investigate Mr C's claim for loss of property. Having said that, while we could conclude that the SPS failed to record receipt of items of Mr C's property, we could not prove that the SPS lost the specific ring to which Mr C referred. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we made a number of recommendations to address the failings we identified in Mr C's case and to help prevent a recurrence of such problems in future.

Recommendations
We recommended that the SPS:
• review Mr C's claim for loss of property, in line with SPS Circular 48/1992, and contact Mr C with the outcome;
• ensure that investigations into claims for loss of property record all evidence obtained; and
• ensure property cards include more accurate and detailed descriptions of items; a record of how items come into prison; and legible recording of property.
 

Summary
Mr C was HIV-positive and was prescribed an anti-retroviral drug, efavirenz, by healthcare professionals at the board. Mr C was told that the potential side-effects of the drugs included dizziness, light-headedness, skin rash and vivid dreams or nightmares. After taking the initial dose, Mr C experienced very distressing mental changes including depression, paranoia, suicidal thoughts and violent thoughts. Mr C complained that he should not have been prescribed the drug in light of his history of mental ill health and that he had not been warned that he might suffer from serious mental change.

After taking advice from one of our medical advisers, we found that Mr C's history of mental ill health was not a reason to avoid the drug, which was a first choice of drug by practitioners in the treatment of HIV because of its effectiveness. We also found that, although healthcare professionals had discussed the main side effects with Mr C, he was not told that he might suffer from serious mental change but we considered this to be reasonable because it was such a rare side-effect. However, we considered that the information provided to patients about the side-effects could be better.

Recommendation
We recommended that the board:
• review the information provided to patients about the potential side-effects of efavirenz.