Resolved, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to ensure that his property was in a suitable condition for letting. He voiced his concerns about damp before taking the tenancy, but felt forced into taking it as he was told if he did not do so then he would be deemed intentionally homeless. He complained that there were unreasonable delays in the council addressing the damp issues, and that they failed to communicate appropriately regarding appointments to carry out remedial works.

In the intervening time since we agreed to investigate the complaint Mr C had accepted a goodwill gesture of £500 and the offer to redecorate his home. We decided that it was not proportionate for us to take his complaint any further since we would not be able to achieve a better outcome for him.

Summary

Ms C complained to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) that she had been unfairly and wrongfully found guilty of breaching prison rules at a disciplinary hearing. She said a number of errors were made. In their response to Ms C's appeal, the SPS agreed that the correct procedures were not followed in her case. However, they said that the finding was based on evidence that proved Ms C was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, Ms C's appeal was not upheld.

When we received Ms C's complaint we asked the SPS to review the matter and to confirm to us whether they were satisfied that the finding of guilt in Ms C's case should stand, despite the failings that had been acknowledged in her appeal. We also pointed out that the appeal paperwork did not show that the internal complaints committee, who considered Ms C's appeal, consisted of the appropriate members as per the prison rules.

The SPS confirmed to us that they reviewed the matter and that they found a host of procedural errors. The SPS said that the finding of guilt against Ms C would be overturned and that the charge would be removed from her record.

We were satisfied that this outcome meant that Ms C's complaint had been resolved.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A). Ms A said that the council delayed in awarding free personal care to her mother when she moved into a care home. Ms A was also unhappy with the way the council dealt with her subsequent complaint.

Following discussions with us, the council acknowledged that they had missed an opportunity to join up their different services so that they could provide Ms A's mother with a comprehensive service. They apologised for this failure and they agreed to reimburse the full free personal care contribution being claimed by Ms A.

As Ms C was happy with this outcome, we closed the case as resolved.

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream regarding a number of charges he had received for failing to make a formal repayment agreement when his account fell into arrears. He said that he had agreed to a repayment plan with Business Stream's debt collectors and stressed that he had adhered to this until his arrears were cleared. He said that the only outstanding balance on his account was due to the charges applied, which he considered were unfair.

On investigation, Business Stream accepted that it was reasonable for Mr C to expect that he had entered into a repayment agreement with them, as he had been paying regularly. They therefore agreed to write off the outstanding charges. We were satisfied that this represented a reasonable resolution to the complaint, as was Mr C.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the housing association as they had refused to repair her broken shower. The association advised that it was not within their responsibility to repair under the terms of her tenancy agreement. However, Mrs C provided a copy of her tenancy agreement, which clearly stated that the association would be responsible for such repairs.

Following our enquiries to the association, they accepted that there had been some confusion about their responsibilities as Mrs C's tenancy agreement pre-dated the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, when the association had introduced a new tenancy agreement with slightly altered repairs responsibilities. They accepted that they were responsible for the repairs, offered Mrs C a payment of £30 in recognition for the inconvenience she had suffered, and explained steps they intended to take to ensure staff were trained to avoid similar mistakes in future.

Mrs C was satisfied that this represented a reasonable resolution to her complaint, as were we. As such, we decided that no further action was necessary.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the bills he was receiving for drainage from his business premises, when he did not believe his property received drainage. He had complained to Business Stream, and they had, on two occasions, requested a de-registration from Scottish Water. They were turned down, and Mr C brought the complaint to us.

We sought further information from Business Stream and from Scottish Water to establish what had happened, and why Mr C's requests for de-registration were being denied. We also sought advice which suggested that Mr C should not be billed for drainage as his property did not appear to be in receipt of drainage services.

During the course of our investigation it became apparent that this complaint, among others, was involved in a review of Scottish Water's drainage policy. In light of amendments to this policy, Scottish Water agreed to de-register Mr C's drainage services, and Business Stream closed his account. They also offered him a time and trouble payment. Mr C confirmed that this resolved his complaints and, consequently, we closed the case.

Summary

Mr C complained about his dentist's charging policy. However, the complaint was resolved when the dental practice offered to change it. There were therefore no grounds for investigation and we closed the case.

Summary

Mrs C complained about care and treatment provided to her late father at University Hospital Crosshouse, and about the board's handling of her complaint. During our investigation the board sent a letter to Mrs C that acknowledged and apologised for their failings, and set out an action plan to remedy the failings. We discussed the letter with Mrs C and, as she was satisfied that the board had resolved her complaints, we agreed to close the file on her complaint. In closing the file, we wrote to the board to express our concerns about the time they took to deal with Mrs C's complaint. While we did not make a formal recommendation, we asked them to provide us with evidence relating to their action plan, which they did.

Summary

Mr C complained to Business Stream about water charges at his business premises. For a period of time, meter readers advised Business Steam that they were unable to access the water meter at the premises. Once access was gained, a bill was issued covering the period from February 2009 to October 2013. Mr C disputed the bill as he said that the usage was far higher than normal for his business. He also complained that Business Stream had not taken reasonable steps to read the meter regularly and as such, they had failed to identify the problem at an early stage.

During our investigation of this case, Mr C's complaints were resolved by Business Stream to his satisfaction.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably invoiced him for charges that he was not liable for. In response to our enquiries, Business Stream said that, after considering the circumstances of the case and some additional information Mr C had provided, they were willing to close the account and withdraw all charges. Mr C confirmed that this resolved his complaint and, consequently, we closed the case.