Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained that Business Stream delayed in issuing their first bill to her. Mrs C had been in her property for nearly five years before she received her first water bill. During this time she thought that her water charges were covered by business rates, for which she had a small business exemption. Mrs C did not have a water meter and Business Stream calculated her bill for the five-year period based on the rateable value of her property. When she received the bill, Mrs C applied for a meter and this reduced her charges. She considered that her bill for the initial period would have been lower if she had been billed earlier, as she would have applied for a water meter earlier.

It was clear from the evidence that Business Stream had not been aware that Mrs C had moved into the property, and only identified that it was no longer vacant when they carried out an audit. We found that they should have had a better process in place during this period for them to identify premises that were no longer vacant. Although we consider that there is at least some onus on the customer to notify Business Stream that they have moved into or occupy a property and that they have a duty to ensure that bills are paid, on balance, we upheld the complaint. Business Stream had apologised for the delay in contacting Mrs C and had confirmed that they now have a process in place to identify occupied properties that were previously vacant.

Mrs C also complained that Business Stream refused to use average meter readings to calculate her charges for the backdated period. We were satisfied that Business Stream assessed her charges in line with their policy on this. They also told Mrs C that she could pay the arrears back over 48 months. Having carefully considered the matter, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint, although we made a related recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• review the outstanding arrears when the new policy on backdating arrears is published.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the built-in DVD player on his in-cell TV set did not work. He did not feel it was fair to pay the full TV service charge when his set was defective. However, the prison confirmed that Mr C was paying for access to TV channels, which he still had, and not the DVD facility. They explained to us that, due to budgetary restrictions, they were not always able to provide new sets and their focus was on ensuring that every cell had access to TV channels. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C also complained about the way in which the prison handled his complaint. He said that the manager who first considered his complaint was also a member of the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) who considered his complaint at the next stage, and that his complaint form was not signed by the three committee members. In responding to this, the prison had pointed out that the manager gave what the prison considered to be a standard reply for that type of complaint. They said he had not offered an opinion on it that could later affect the outcome of the hearing. They acknowledged that the ICC members had omitted to sign the complaint form and an administrator had signed it on their behalf.

The prison rules do not advise against ICC members being involved at an earlier stage of the complaint. However, we pointed out that it is good practice for staff involved in complaints to be impartial, independent and accountable. While we were satisfied that the outcome of this complaint was not negatively influenced by the manager’s presence on the ICC, we took the view that a potential conflict of interest could have arisen, and that his appointment to the ICC would have best been avoided. We also noted that the ICC members should have signed the complaint form, and in the circumstances, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• take steps to ensure that members of the ICC have not previously been involved in the handling of the complaint being considered; and
• remind staff that, when they participate in an ICC hearing, they appropriately sign part 5 of the PCF1 form.

Summary

Organisation C complained to the Commissioner about the actions of a councillor who chaired a public design competition initiated by the council. Two members of the organisation were council employees at the time of the competition, and the organisation said that there had been attempts to coerce them to inappropriately influence the competition process. The organisation also alleged the councillor had acted inappropriately in relation to the competition. The Commissioner investigated and made a finding that there had been no breach of the code of conduct for councillors (the code).

Organisation C complained to us that the decision was wrong because the Commissioner's view that there was a gap in the evidence for the first allegation and that the second allegation was out of jurisdiction did not justify the conclusions made. They were also concerned about how the evidence of whistleblowers was treated.

We did not uphold the first complaint, as the decisions outlined in the Commissioner’s letter were sufficient to justify his view that there had been no breach of the code. However, we were concerned that the note of the decision contained significant additional comments that seemed to make judgements on the actions of the councillor, and on the actions of the council itself. It was not clear what standards the Commissioner was using to judge this, as the actions of the council were clearly not covered by the code and, in the case of the actions of the councillor, the Commissioner had said they were not. We explained that this was confusing and made a recommendation on this point.

On the complaint about the way whistleblowing evidence had been handled, we found no evidence that the Commissioner had made errors in his assessment of what weight to put on the evidence or fact-finding. However, we were concerned that staff were named in a public report. This appeared to have been out of line with the Commissioner's standard practice and we were not persuaded by the explanations he gave us about this. The naming of witnesses in such an unusual way led to a perception that the witnesses had not been dealt with appropriately and, on this basis, we upheld this complaint and made a further recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Commissioner:

• reflects on the note on the Commissioner's decision, and the difficulties that the confusion and lack of clarity about the status of statements within it has caused; and
• develops a policy for the naming of individuals in future cases, to ensure consistency, which should take particular account of the position of individuals being asked to give evidence about their employers.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the council handled a complaint he made about social work involvement with him and his family. He was unhappy that the council asked him to restrict the information he wanted to present to a social work complaints review committee (CRC) and said that the council allowed the CRC to take place knowing that it would be unable to address the details of his complaint. He also complained that the council had referred him to the SPSO inappropriately and that a council manager involved in investigating his stage two complaint had also been involved in the social work decision-making.

We took the view that the council did not request this to try to prevent Mr C from putting forward his detailed arguments. It was intended as helpful advice, given their knowledge of CRCs and how they operate. The request was, however, worded in such a way that they asked (rather than advised) him to restrict the amount of information he presented to the CRC. The council were able to give him advice, but our view was that only the members of the CRC itself could ask him to restrict his submission and so we upheld this element of his complaint. We did not uphold his other complaints. We found that Mr C was given the opportunity to speak about this in full at the CRC and that CRC members had access to his full submission. There was, therefore, no evidence that they were unable to consider his complaints sufficiently and robustly. We also took the view that the council acted correctly by referring Mr C to the SPSO, in line with their obligations under the SPSO Act, and the evidence we saw did not support his view that the manager was involved in investigating the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back to the relevant committee services staff that, while the council can advise a complainant, only the CRC themselves can request that a complainant restricts their submission.

Summary

Mr C was concerned about the development of a piece of land near his home. The council had given planning permission for development of the site, with certain conditions attached. Just before the time limit on this consent expired, some work was carried out on the site, after which the council confirmed that the developer had discharged their responsibilities under the planning conditions. Mr C complained to the council that this decision was unreasonable, and that they had not made relevant documents available to the public as required by legislation. The council responded to Mr C's complaints, but he remained dissatisfied and complained to us.

Our investigation found that the council had acted in line with legislation and procedure in deciding whether the conditions had been discharged. They had not, however, made all relevant documents available as they should have done so we upheld that element of the complaint. Mr C also complained about the council's handling of his complaints, but we decided this had been reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind their staff that they must ensure that all relevant parts of the planning register are available to the public as required in legislation.

Summary

Ms C had council tax arrears, and had made arrangements (with sheriff officers acting for the council) to clear these. She told us that she had not disputed the arrears but when she was interested in buying her home and asked the council to issue her with a right to buy certificate, they had unreasonably declined to do so because she had uncollected council tax arrears. However, she had an invoice from the sheriff officers saying that her account for the period in dispute was clear. She told us that the information from the council about her council tax account was inconsistent and inaccurate; and that the council unreasonably expected her to keep payment receipts for 20 years.

We were provided with only limited evidence from both Ms C and the council, but the council confirmed that in 2010 a request from solicitors acting for Ms C for a right to buy certificate was declined on that basis. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint about this because the council’s records showed that her account was in arrears in 2013. However, our investigation found a disparity in the information that sheriff officers acting for the council had given Ms C, and that provided by the council. The council have a duty in law to collect council tax, and we found nothing restricting them from taking steps to collect old debts. However, as it was unclear what arrears were outstanding in recent years, we upheld this point of complaint and made recommendations. It was too late for us to investigate actions taken 20 years ago, and we explained to Ms C that we could not consider events from that time.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures to include an enquiry to their debt management partners about the balance of arrears on a customer's council tax account before responding to an enquiry or complaint related to such an account;
• put Ms C's account on hold while further investigation is undertaken into the transactions undertaken on her council tax accounts through sheriff officers, and provide both her and the Ombudsman with documentation which confirms how their findings about the balance on her accounts was arrived at;
• waive any statutory penalties that have not been levied correctly; and
• formally apologise to Ms C.

Summary

Mr C built a driveway at his property, which is at a junction, but was told by the council that he should not use the pedestrian dropped kerb there as access. As a result Mr C then applied for permission to construct an additional vehicular access away from the junction and requested that the council carry out work to drop the kerb. He then complained about the treatment he received from the council regarding the new driveway he had constructed at the junction and his dropped kerb application. He felt that the council had imposed inappropriate conditions on the consent for the dropped kerb application. Mr C also complained about the council's handling of his complaint.

We found that there had been a considerable amount of correspondence with the council on the matter and Mr C had gained the impression that the council had changed the conditions. However, based on the available evidence we were satisfied that the council had explained why the works they outlined were required and we did not uphold that complaint. We did uphold his complaint about complaints handling, as we found that the council had (in line with their complaints procedure) escalated Mr C's complaint straight to stage two of their process. They had not, however, told him about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff that customers need to be informed as early as possible if their complaint is being escalated straight to stage two of their complaints process, and ensure they are notified of their right to complain to the SPSO;
• remind staff of the need to consider whether a customer should be contacted to discuss their complaint at stage two of the complaints process; and
• apologise to Mr C for their handling of his complaint.

Summary

Mrs and Ms C told us that they registered for the council’s downsizing incentive scheme when it was first introduced, as they no longer needed a three bedroom house. (This was a scheme where tenants were offered a cash payment if they moved to a smaller house.) When they were offered their current property in June 2013 they expected to receive a payment and were shocked to be told that the scheme had ended. An article later appeared in the local press referring to the scheme ‘continuing’ because it had been a success.

Mrs and Ms C complained to the council. They said they felt penalised and discriminated against because they moved during a period when the council said the scheme was not in place. Mrs and Ms C said that had they known that it was to be continued later they could have made a more informed decision about moving house. In reply, the council said that the scheme ended on 31 March 2013 as there was no new money to keep it going. However, new funding later became available and officers decided to seek approval to introduce a new scheme. This was approved in September 2013 and the scheme came into effect on 1 October 2013. Mrs and Ms C then complained to us that the council unreasonably refused to make them a downsizing incentive payment when they moved, and did not reply to their correspondence within the published time limits for doing so.

When we investigated, the council told us that information about the scheme was available on the internet and on posters in council offices. Funding was made available for it on an annual basis, and it was suspended from 31 March 2013 because it could not be funded again at that time. We did not find any service failure or maladministration in the council's decision to suspend the scheme. This was a decision that they were entitled to make and as the scheme was suspended at the time Mrs and Ms C took up the new tenancy, the council’s decision not to make an incentive award was correct.

We understood, however, why Mrs and Ms C felt so aggrieved, and we were concerned that the council did not keep them, or other tenants who had applied for the scheme, directly informed about amendments to it. We also noted an inconsistency of language on the part of the council when referring to the scheme's status. We found no evidence at all of any correspondence with Mrs and Ms C on this matter, or that it was discussed with them when they were offered their current property. We upheld the complaint about the failure to respond, and took the view that putting information on the internet, or on posters in council offices was not sufficient in this case, especially as there must have been only a very limited number of tenants involved. We, therefore, made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their decision not to make a downsizing payment to Mrs and Ms C in view of their failure to keep them informed of the changes made to the scheme; and
• review their procedures and put in place measures to ensure that tenants are kept better informed in any future amendments to the scheme or any similar initiatives.

Summary

When Mr C took a tenancy with the housing association he was unhappy with the state of the kitchen tiling and replaced it himself, after telling a housing officer he intended to do so. Six months after he moved in, he suffered a lighting and power failure on a winter night and called out the association's emergency electrician service. He received an invoice and reminders for this call-out, with which he disagreed. He complained about this and about dampness in his property. When he felt this was not resolved to his satisfaction, he gave notice that he was terminating his tenancy, and moved out, without paying the invoice. As he left the property before handing in the keys, there was no pre-termination inspection and he left no forwarding address. Five days after he handed the keys back, the association inspected the property and said that the work Mr C had done was of unsatisfactory quality. They instructed plasterboard and tiling repairs and work to replace sockets damaged by grout. After receiving the invoices for this work, and without contacting Mr C at his known email address, the association instructed debt recovery agents to pursue Mr C for the sums they said he owed. He eventually found out about the debt through a relative.

Mr C complained to us that the association were unreasonably seeking to charge for the emergency electrician visit and for works carried out after he left the tenancy, and that they put the matter in the hands of debt recovery agents without first contacting him. Our investigation found that the association had unreasonably sought to recover the charges, as there was no evidence to show that they had raised concerns about the quality of the tiling at any time before Mr C vacated the property. We also found that they had not considered whether it was in fact reasonable for Mr C to call out the electrician under the circumstances, and that they could have first contacted him by email about the debt recovery.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• review their advice to tenants on use of the out-of-hours service and the circumstances where tenants may or will be re-charged;
• consider reducing the recharges sought to recognise the administrative failings identified;
• share the decision with staff involved in this matter to ensure that in future appropriate records are kept of discussions held with tenants;
• remind staff that, where applicable, written permission for carrying out repairs/improvements to a property is provided to tenants as per the tenancy agreement; and
• give consideration to amending their processes so that, where a request has been made by the association for a tenant to bring repairs carried out themselves up to an acceptable standard, an inspection is subsequently carried out to ensure that this has been done.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a relative (Ms B) about the care and treatment provided to her partner (Mr A) during two admissions to Wishaw General Hospital before his death. Mr A was first admitted after being taken there by ambulance late at night. He had a history of cirrhosis (long term liver damage) and gastric varices (dilated veins in the stomach), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a lung disease related to narrowed airways), type 2 diabetes and gout. It was identified that he had low blood pressure, dehydration and kidney impairment. He was treated with fluids, his medications were reviewed to try to improve his condition and tests were carried out on a potential abnormality in his bowel. Mr A was discharged from hospital after a week, as his blood tests had returned to normal, but was readmitted three days later, as he was short of breath. The admitting junior doctor noted that Mr A had increasing breathlessness and swelling of his hands and legs. Mr A initially started to improve, but five days after admission his condition deteriorated rapidly and he died three days later.

We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from two of our advisers, a nurse and a medical adviser. We found that the care and treatment provided to Mr A during his first admission was reasonable and appropriate. He was also adequately assessed by a physiotherapist before he was discharged. Although staff did forget to remove heart monitor cables from his skin before he was discharged, the advice we received was that these were unlikely to have caused Mr A any harm.

We found that in general, the medical and nursing care and treatment provided to Mr A during his second admission was also reasonable. However, staff had noted that blood tests should be repeated the day after Mr A was admitted. There was no evidence that this was done over the next four days, although a later note in the records said that staff were unable to carry out a blood test because of difficulty in finding veins under Mr A's skin to withdraw blood. If this was the reason why blood tests were not carried out over the four days, this should have been documented at the time. We noted that, after examining Mr A's clinical records, our medical adviser explained that it was likely that Mr A's condition would have deteriorated and that he would have died even if the blood tests had been performed as planned. We did, however, uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint in view of the failure to complete the planned blood tests or to document why these were not carried out.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• issue a written apology to Ms B for the failure to carry out blood tests as planned or to document why this was not done; and
• ensure that the staff involved in Mr A's care and treatment are made aware of our findings on this matter.