Resolved, no recommendations

Summary

C complained to their water provider that they had failed to reasonably bill them for their water services and that they failed to reasonably handle their subsequent complaints on this matter. Since receiving C's complaint, the SPSO have published two public reports about Water Plus. C and Water Plus have managed to reach agreement on the final payment due. The complaint has been closed on the grounds of it being resolved to the satisfaction of C.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their late grandparent (A).

A was admitted to hospital. The next month they were moved to an NHS continuing care bed in a care home. Shortly after, A's child and Power of Attorney (POA) received a call from a social worker to inform them that A would be transferred to a different care home the next day. C spoke to the social worker the same day and this was confirmed. The move was stated to have been due to the need to free up beds in light of the developing pandemic. C asserted that both they and A's POA were told that A would be moved to another NHS bed. Subsequently, A's family received a fee note from the new care home. C complained that A's move had been unreasonable and that A's family had not been informed of any potential costs.

The council said that A's move was reasonable in light of a clear directive from the Scottish Government to free hospital beds. They said that the social worker had informed A's family that the move would be to a private nursing home.

C complained to us. We took initial independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that the council's response regarding the move appeared reasonable, but that its response regarding fees was unreasonable. The adviser highlighted the information they would expect a family to be given prior to such a move.

We opened an investigation into the case and notified the council of this decision. In response, the council changed their position.

While it noted the circumstances of the developing pandemic, the council accepted that its communication with A's family had been inadequate. They proposed resolving the complaint by acknowledging their failure and by paying the care home fees.

C accepted this resolution. As it was considered that there was no systemic learning to be found (due to specific nature of the failure) the complaint was closed on this basis.

Summary

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) about the failure by the council to carry out a kinship care assessment. This failure meant A had not been provided with interim payments whilst a child (B) resided with them. B was the subject of a compulsory supervision order (CSO), which required them to live at A's property. The council said they considered the arrangement to be a private one between A and B's family and they did not believe a CSO was necessary or appropriate. The council added that B no longer resided with A.

Following our enquiries, the council offered to make a payment to A for the period between the making of the CSO and B moving out. C confirmed this was acceptable to A and would resolve the complaint.

Summary

C, an advocate, complained on behalf of their client (A) regarding the length of time taken by the partnership to complete a kinship care assessment in respect of A's grandchild. A was seeking for the kinship care allowance to be backdated.

Following two enquiries from this office, the partnership acknowledged that there was an unacceptable delay in completing the kinship assessment and they confirmed that they would backdate the kinship care payment. The partnership also said that they would meet with A to explain the detail and breakdown of the payment and make arrangements for the payment to be made. C confirmed that the above actions would provide a satisfactory resolution to A's complaint. The complaint was closed on the basis that it had been resolved.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's response to his reports about the high electricity usage at his property. Following our enquiries, the council acknowledged that there was a note within their records to fit an E10 timer at Mr C's property which was not actioned and would have resulted in additional cost to Mr C. The council said they were willing to offer Mr C a letter of apology and compensation. Mr C accepted this as a resolution to his complaint and the complaint was closed on that basis.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of an organisation. She said that they were not issued with appropriate terms and conditions by Clear Business Water and that Clear Business Water failed to communicate reasonably with them about their concerns. Clear Business Water acknowledged there was a delay in issuing the relevant terms and conditions. They offered to apologise for the error, refund the charges on the account and pay them a sum of money as a goodwill gesture. Ms C confirmed she wished to withdraw her complaint, as it had been resolved to their satisfaction.

Summary

Miss C complained to us about the response she received from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) in relation to a complaint she made about a prison officer. During our investigation, the SPS agreed to issue a revised response to Miss C's complaint. We considered that this response adequately addressed the issues she had raised and that it resolved the complaint. We closed the complaint for this reason.

Summary

Mrs C, the sole homeowner in a council owned block of homes, complained about a unreasonable delay in arranging for mutual repairs to the property and a failure to keep her reasonably informed regarding when repairs would be carried out. We took no further action as the complaint was resolved on the basis of a reduction in the cost of the repair work in acknowledgement of the complaint received.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not provided with an opportunity to attend an internal complaints committee (ICC) in relation to his disciplinary appeal. He provided us with evidence that suggested he was in court on this day, which contradicted the prison's position that he was given an opportunity to attend.

After we indicated to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) that we intended to investigate the complaint, the Chair of the ICC reviewed their systems and confirmed that Mr C attended court on the day that the ICC took place. Therefore, he was not able to attend. SPS acknowledged that this should not have happened and stated that they would hold another ICC so that Mr C could attend and put his case across.

Based on Mr C's desired outcomes in his complaint to us, we were satisfied that SPS's actions resolved the complaint. Therefore, we closed our investigation of his complaint as resolved.

Summary

Mr C complained about the decision to transfer his wife (Mrs A) from Wishaw General Hospital to a care home and the manner in which this was done. Mr C was concerned that he was not advised in advance about the transfer or that the decision was discussed with him. Mr C was also concerned about the lack of information given to him about the facilities available at the home and the handover provided by the hospital to the home.

During our investigation the board issued an apology to Mr C for the errors made. They confirmed that the transfer took place during a time when there was an extreme pressure on beds and the information provided to Mr C was not adequate. They also accepted that staff on the ward were not aware of the type of services available at the home. They confirmed that there should have been a more adequate handover note. As the board apologised for the errors and confirmed steps they would take to improve the service, the complaint was resolved and we took no further action.