Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison unreasonably failed to explain to him why they had imposed security measures on him that meant he was unable to attend work or education.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) confirmed that Mr C had been placed on risk management precautions. These were measures introduced by the prison to create a safe environment for prisoners and staff, and only related to those prisoners who were deemed to present a risk to others and where it was felt additional conditions should be in place. They said Mr C had received a written note outlining the precautions, and his case manager also met with him to discuss them. They said that, in Mr C's case, they decided to put the precautions in place because of concerns raised in his risk assessment report and his behaviour in the past. They pointed to information in Mr C's risk assessment report that they felt supported their decision. As Mr C had received a document confirming the precautions, and had been involved in discussions with his case manager and as part of the complaints process, we did not uphold his complaint.

Mr C also complained that the governor failed to complete his complaint form appropriately. In particular, the governor had not indicated whether he accepted the internal complaints committee (ICC) decision on Mr C's complaint. In line with the normal process, a governor should tick the relevant box to confirm they accept the decision. If a governor decides not to accept the ICC’s decision, they are required to provide a written explanation for this by completing the relevant section on the form.

The SPS confirmed they had spoken with the governor about this and he confirmed that not ticking the relevant box was an oversight. The SPS said the governor apologised and confirmed he accepted the ICC’s decision on Mr C's complaint. We noted that the governor had not recorded any objection to the decision, and we took the view that the failure to tick the box was not significant and were satisfied with the explanation provided by the SPS. However, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint because the governor had not completed the form properly.

Summary

In 2013 Mr C was an objector to a planning application. As part of his objections he asked the council to consult with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) about flood risk at the development site. During the planning process, Mr C discovered that SEPA employees were the agents for the planning application. SEPA had provided advice on the flood risk assessment (FRA) during a previous planning application in 2011. This application had been withdrawn and a later application in 2012 had been rejected. The council approved the 2013 application, subject to conditions, and Mr C was unhappy with SEPA’s involvement, and their response to the council’s consultation.

Mr C complained that staff failed to declare an interest before they provided advice in 2011. Mr C said that SEPA had unreasonably removed an allowance for climate change from the FRA and had not referred to Scottish planning policy in their advice to the council, despite both of these being a requirement in SEPA's guidelines. He also complained that SEPA should have required an updated FRA because the position of the site access road had changed.

Our investigation found that SEPA’s assessment of the conflict of interest was a matter excluded by our governing legislation, and was a discretionary decision on their part. Our investigation was restricted to considering whether they had followed their procedures and if these were appropriate. SEPA had investigated and found that there was a perceived conflict of interest, but no evidence of an actual conflict. We found that their investigation had been thorough, and that the decision they reached was supported by the evidence they gathered and in line with their employee code of conduct.

We also found that SEPA had conducted a thorough investigation of the advice given, with separate reviews of both the planning advice and the flood risk and hydrology advice they had provided. However, we found that SEPA's published guidance said that an allowance for climate change in calculations of flood risk was a requirement, it didn't mention that SEPA might exercise discretion on this. We, therefore, upheld Mr C's complaint about the removal of the allowance. However, because SEPA had already recognised the confusion the guidance had caused, and said they would develop consolidated operational guidance, we did not find it necessary to make a recommendation.

We took the view that the new route of the access road was a matter for the council. SEPA had explained that the question of safe access/egress referred to pedestrian access/egress in the event of a flood, rather than to the road in isolation. We found that the council had considered this and had sought advice from the flood prevention officer. We also took the view that it was for SEPA to decide whether to refer to Scottish planning policy.

Summary

Mr C contacted the council to complain about an elected member. He was dissatisfied with the council's response, and complained about this to them. Mr C remained dissatisfied. He complained to us that the council had not dealt reasonably with his phone contact, had not reasonably responded to his complaints and had deliberately included errors in contact details that they supplied to him.

We found that the phone contact had been reasonable and that there was no evidence that the errors in contact details provided were deliberate. We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council's response to his complaint was not reasonable, but did not consider that they needed to take any further action in relation to this.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council did not keep her informed of her housing allocation points status. She also said that her complaint about this was not properly investigated.

Ms C had been awarded medical points for a previous property but when she moved into a private let these were removed. She only found this out when she attended a meeting about her housing status. When she complained, the council said that her points had been correctly removed and confirmed that she should have been told about this.

Our investigation found that the council should have kept Ms C informed about her housing allocation points, and we upheld her complaint. However, as they had apologised and reminded staff of their responsibilities, we did not make any recommendations. We did not uphold her second complaint as we found that they had conducted their investigation in line with their complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Ms C complained that the association had not responded reasonably when she reported noise nuisance from her neighbour, or when another neighbour replaced a section of her boundary fence without prior warning. She also said that an officer had contacted her on her mobile phone without prior agreement that she was happy with this means of contact.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaint about noise. We found that the association had followed their policy on neighbour relations and had worked with Ms C's neighbour and family to try to mediate. They had referred Ms C to the council's noise team, and explained that they could not take action against her neighbour without corroborated evidence, and that they had no evidence of excessive noise. They clearly explained how and to whom excessive noise should be reported when it was happening.

We also found that their response about the fence was reasonable. The neighbour had not told the association or Ms C that they intended replacing some storm-damaged fencing. When Ms C reported that there were workers in her garden she had not expected, but did not receive an immediate response. The association were not, however, required to respond immediately. They did later check the new section of fencing and establish that it was of a sufficient standard, and they offered to have it painted to match the existing fence.

We did uphold the complaint about the phone call. We found that the association should have checked that Ms C was happy for them to use the phone number in question and whether she was expecting a return call. As they had already acknowledged that Ms C had not asked for a return call, upheld her complaint and apologised to her, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C, who was a student at the university, complained about lack of supervision, lack of feedback on assessments, arrangements for presentations not being as described in course documents, and that the university's investigation of his complaint did not consider all available relevant evidence.

Our investigation found that the internal investigation of Mr C's complaints had found some failings and that elements relating to the first two complaints were acknowledged and appropriate remedial action taken. Therefore, although we upheld the first two complaints, we did not need to make any recommendations. In relation to the arrangements for the presentations, there were no specific requirements set out in the course documentation and we did not uphold this complaint. We also found that the investigation of Mr C's complaint was thorough and in line with the university's complaints procedure. Mr C thought that some of his fellow students should have been interviewed during the investigation but they were not. While we understood why Mr C was not satisfied with this, we took the view that it was generally for the person conducting the investigation to decide what was relevant. There was no evidence to suggest that this was a significant omission and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C and Mr D both owned property next to land for which a planning application for development was submitted and approved. During the period of consultation on the application Mrs C was given access to the council's planning file, including a business plan submitted as part of the application. Mrs C and Mr D submitted objections to the application, but work subsequently began on the development, including closing a road so that passing places could be built.

Mrs C and Mr D both complained to the council that the report had not been reasonable in dealing with a number of council policies, national guidance and the business plan, that the passing places had not been built in line with council standards, that the road closure had not been undertaken in line with council guidance and that a letter Mrs C had submitted was not responded to within a reasonable timescale. The council responded saying that the report was reasonable, that Mrs C should not have been given access to the business plan, that the passing places and the road closure had been in line with relevant standards and guidance. They agreed that they had not met their service standards in regard to the response to Mrs C's letter.

Mrs C and Mr D were not satisfied and raised their complaints with us. We looked at these complaints together. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the report had been reasonable, that the passing places had been built in line with the relevant standards and that the road closure had been undertaken in line with the relevant guidance. We did not uphold these complaints. We upheld the complaint about the time taken to respond to Mrs C's letter but, as the council had apologised for this and had reminded staff involved about their customer service standards to ensure that there was no recurrence of this, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) about Business Stream's charges for water services at several properties for which Mr A's firm acted as landlord. We established that there had been an error on the account but that Business Stream had put this right before the complaint was submitted to us. We also noted that there had been an undercharge on part of the account. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C had also complained to us about Business Stream's complaints handling. Business Stream acknowledged that this had not always been of the standard they would have expected and offered Mr C an ex-gratia payment in recognition of this. Although we upheld Mr C's complaint, we decided to make no recommendations as we had recently been in discussions with Business Stream about complaints handling. They had agreed to arrange an independent external audit of their complaints process, and so we were satisfied that the problems were being addressed.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about their handling of an incident involving her late brother (Mr A). Mr A had severe learning difficulties and at the time of the incident was receiving 24-hour support at home from a care provider. He fell down a flight of stairs and was seriously injured, after the carer administered a drug with a sedative effect. Mr A died some time later.

We acknowledged that the council's communication with Ms C could have been clearer in relation to who was actually investigating the incident but did not consider that they had intentionally misled her. Neither did we consider it unreasonable that the council did not hold a further complaints hearing after Ms C provided them with a report from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as the report contained little information that was not already available to the council. We also determined that the council provided a reasonable explanation about why they did not follow procedures laid out in the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 and associated code of practice issued by the Scottish Government.

We noted, however, that the Scottish Government introduced guidance two months after the incident, clarifying the role of the chief social work officer (CSWO). This outlined that the CSWO should ensure that significant case reviews are carried out into all critical incidents either resulting in, or which could have resulted in, death or serious harm. Although the guidance was not in place at the time of the incident involving Ms C's brother, it came into effect less than two months later, and the council received the care provider's report into the investigation after the guidance had been published. Given the seriousness of the incident, therefore, and the fact that the HSE only recently disclosed more of their report, we concluded that it would have been reasonable for the council to have conducted a significant case review. This would have enabled them to look at all aspects of Mr A's care, to properly establish whether any lessons had to be learned or improvements in practice were needed. As, however, the independent chair of the council's adult support and protection committee had since agreed to conduct such a review, we made no recommendations about this.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the council's actions in relation to planning permission that they granted for an agricultural building. She said that they had failed to take into account a legal agreement they had made with the applicant a number of years before. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the council had considered the legal agreement, but were entitled to decide not to take any action against the applicant in relation to it. Mrs C also complained that the council failed to give the environmental impact of the application the level of scrutiny required by their policies and relevant plans. We considered that the environmental impact had been adequately assessed, and that they had not been required to consider alternative sites for the building.

Although in their report on the matter the council had not listed a policy that was particularly relevant to the application, and we upheld Mrs C's complaint about that, we found that they did consider the issues in the policy during the application and so the omission did not appear to have affected the outcome. We also found that, other than this, they had presented the relevant information. In addition, we found that they engaged reasonably with local residents who objected to the application. Finally, Mrs C said that the council had failed to take action against the applicant for misleading consultees during the pre-planning consultation process. We found, however, that it had been reasonable for them not to do so. There are no provisions in planning legislation for such action and the only redress for any issues arising from the pre-application consultation stage is through consideration of how these may have affected the merits of the application once it is made.