Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

After Ms C's business moved into new premises in September 2009, Business Stream wrote asking her to confirm that the premises were occupied and to set up a water account. Ms C said that she completed and returned the forms, but heard nothing more. Business Stream said they did not receive the documents, and so it was not until an inspector visited her premises in December 2012 that an account was set up for her business and her first invoice issued. Ms C complained that the delay to her first invoice being issued was unreasonable. She also complained that it was not until it was issued that she realised her water consumption was unexpectedly high. Subsequent investigation found two leaks. She complained that Business Stream should have done more to help her identify and repair the leaks.

We found that it was Ms C's responsibility to tell Business Stream (or another provider) that she had moved into the premises. That said, we accepted that she had tried to do so when she received Business Stream's forms. We found that Business Stream had experienced problems with forms going missing around that time. Ultimately, we considered that this contributed around 12 months to the delay in the first invoice being issued. We did not consider it Business Stream's responsibility to identify or repair internal leaking pipes. However, we felt that they should recognise that Ms C incurred additional expense as a result of her first invoice being delayed, as it was not until she received it that she realised there was a problem with her water supply.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• offer Ms C an ex-gratia payment equivalent to ten percent of her water bills for the period in question, in recognition of the delay to her initial bill and its impact on her ability to identify problems with her pipework.

Summary

Mrs C, who owns a holiday cottage, complained after Business Stream contacted her by phone about an outstanding bill for the premises. At the time she was not aware that she was obliged to pay Business Stream, as she believed she paid through her council tax for the water at the cottage. After Mrs C’'s MSP wrote to Business Stream on her behalf, it was established that the account had been set up with the wrong start date, and Mrs C was issued with a corrected invoice. She was then sent an invoice showing that the balance on her account had been cleared, which lead her to close her account with Business Stream, and transfer to another water company. She was then sent a further invoice showing a large outstanding balance. She complained to the chief executive, who offered her a goodwill payment.

Mrs C was still unhappy and complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably pursued her for the amount due and that they had not dealt with her in a professional way.

Our investigation found that Business Stream is legally the default supplier. This applies in all cases, including those where a business does not realise it is liable for water charges, or is operating under the belief that water charges are paid to the local authority. Mrs C had acted in good faith, but unfortunately had received inaccurate advice about water charges from her local authority, so we did not uphold this complaint. We also found, however, that the goodwill payment had not been processed. Although Business Stream did do this after we became involved, they did not apologise to Mrs C for the failure, they repeatedly issued invoices without any explanatory correspondence, and the order in which these were issued was confusing. We also found that Business Stream failed to acknowledge or apologise for the time and trouble they had caused Mrs C, and so we upheld her complaint about the way in which they dealt with her.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise for the failings identified in our investigation;
• make a time and trouble payment; and
• ensure that, when corrections are made to customer accounts, invoices are issued with explanatory correspondence.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream unreasonably refused to award a burst allowance following a leak at a property he managed. He also complained that their handling of the complaint was inadequate, and that this had caused him an unreasonable amount of additional work and inconvenience.

We did not uphold the first part of the complaint. We found that, in fact, it was Scottish Water who decided to reject the allowance (as in their view too little excess water was used to merit awarding it), which was a decision that they were entitled to make under their procedures for dealing with burst water pipes.

Our investigation did, however, find that Business Stream had not investigated Mr C’s complaint for some eleven months and so we upheld his concerns about their complaints handling. Although there were a number of complex issues being investigated on the site, we found that it was unreasonable for Business Stream not to have taken any action in respect of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise in writing for the failings identified in our report; and
• cancel the recovery charges that were applied to Mr C's account while he was awaiting a response to his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to enable him to have outdoor exercise. Our investigation found, however, that the reason for this was that the outdoor exercise time for his residential area conflicted with another optional activity he took part in. We also found that the SPS had offered other arrangements for him since he made his complaint, so that he could do both. We did not uphold this complaint as we considered that the SPS had acted reasonably.

Mr C also complained about various aspects of the handling of his complaint. We upheld some of this, as we found that the SPS had not acted in accordance with prison rules. These say that, at the first stage of the complaint, a prisoner must be offered the chance to discuss it verbally, and that the final stage of the complaint should take no more than 20 days. Neither of these things happened. In terms of the opportunity for discussion, as the SPS have already introduced a revised form as a result of a previous complaint to us we did not need to make a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the two complaints handling issues identified; and
• remind staff of the requirement to meet the 20-day timescale of Prison Rule 123(9).

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained after the prison took the decision to place him under restraint, using a body belt. He said that the decision was unnecessary and that he was held under restraint for more than 12 hours without approval from Scottish Ministers. He also complained that prison staff failed to appropriately observe him whilst he was under restraint, and that he was unreasonably denied access to toilet and water breaks.

Our investigation found that the prison were authorised by prison rules to place Mr C under restraint. The prison explained that they decided to do that because he was continuously harming himself and refusing medical treatment. We cannot question a decision that the prison were entitled to take, unless there is evidence to show us they failed to do something properly in reaching that decision. Mr C did not agree with the decision, but that was not a reason for us to uphold this complaint.

In looking at the period of time Mr C was held under restraint, the prison rules say a prisoner cannot be placed under restraint for more than 12 hours without Scottish Ministers’ authority. The prison held Mr C under restraint for more than 12 hours without seeking that permission. They identified this error before Mr C complained, and took steps to review the process and ensure staff were aware of it. In addition, the prison rules confirm that an officer must monitor a prisoner continuously while they are held under restraint. The prison said that this happened in Mr C’s case, but he disputed this. There was no closed-circuit television evidence available for us to see, but documented evidence in the form of log sheets confirmed that staff generally recorded information about Mr C’s behaviour at least once every 15 minutes. However, the prison were unable to provide evidence that he was checked between 19:30 and 22:00. Without that, we could not reach a fully formed decision as to whether Mr C was continuously monitored, but it meant that the evidence did not show that he was. Mr C also said he was denied toilet and water breaks whilst wearing the restraint. The documented evidence indicated that he was provided with a drink and access to the toilet only once and in our view, that was unacceptable. In light of our findings, we upheld all of these complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for inappropriately failing to seek the required permission to hold him in the restraint for more than 12 hours;
• ensure written records are maintained for the entire time period that a prisoner is kept in restraints; and
• ask the prison to advise staff that when a prisoner is being held in a restraint, they should be offered access to water and the toilet regularly, and this should be appropriately documented.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council’s handling of three planning applications. He said that the applicant had originally claimed that a number of people, including Mr C, supported all three applications. Mr C, however, said that he had supported only one (smaller) application. The police were still conducting an investigation into this when the council granted planning permission. Mr C questioned the transparency of the council’s decision.

Our investigation found that the information about the level of support for the applications came to light after the planning reports were prepared and they had to be amended. However, the copies on the council’s website were not updated properly and so Mr C questioned whether or not the committee, when they decided to grant permission, had considered the accurate reports. The council acknowledged that their website was out of date and said that this was an administrative error. They said that this did not mean that the committee had considered out of date information and explained that the matter was specifically brought to the chair’s attention at the start of the meeting. They also explained that they had taken legal advice and were told that, on the basis of 'innocent until proven guilty', the applications should be decided despite the ongoing police investigation.

Although the council provided the original and updated paperwork, there was no documentary evidence that could confirm exactly what papers the committee had considered. In addition, the legal advice had been given verbally, so there was no documentary record of what had been said. Although we upheld Mr C’s complaint that incorrect information was made available online, we did not find that the council had unreasonably determined the applications. They had taken legal advice and, from an administrative perspective, took a decision that they were entitled to take (although we did recommend that they keep records of such advice in future).

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider making contemporaneous records of verbal legal advice to ensure a clear audit trail; and
• update their website to reflect the accurate reports considered by the committee (in both the planning and committee sections).

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not reasonably investigated and responded to his concerns about what he considered to be discriminatory treatment of his child by a teacher. He complained that the school had allowed the practice to continue and also believed that incidents and meetings/contact with school staff to discuss his concerns were not logged or recorded.

We upheld part of Mr C's complaint. Our investigation found that the council had carried out a reasonable investigation, considered all available evidence and responded to the issues raised. We also found, however, that the school had not recorded incidents and contacts in the appropriate way.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for not ensuring adequate record-keeping; and
• emphasise to the school the importance of adequate record-keeping.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C’s child was diagnosed with autism. Their child was placed in a primary school, as they had wished, and received 25 hours learning assistance support a week, in the primary two year. There were, however, problems in managing the child's behaviour in class. As the primary three class would be larger, a meeting was held at the primary school during the summer, attended by Mr and Mrs C, their advocate, and various professionals. They discussed the child's imminent transfer and issues that school staff were having with managing the child's behaviour.

Mr and Mrs C’s child started primary three in a mainstream class but the following month the head teacher decided that the child's schoolday should be reduced to five hours, with two learning assistants supporting the child together. During the year, following further incidents, the head teacher excluded the child, and called Mr and Mrs C in for a meeting. Mrs C attended and after discussing matters with her husband, told the head teacher that they would not accept the terms set out for readmittance. Their child did not return to the primary school, and Mr and Mrs C appealed to an exclusion appeals committee. After the committee met, Mr and Mrs C were offered ,and eventually accepted, a place elsewhere.

Our investigation upheld Mr and Mrs C’s complaints that the council failed to take the appropriate steps in following their exclusion process and, in particular, that an out-of-date leaflet had been issued and that the council failed to keep adequate records. We did not uphold their complaints that the council failed to follow a clear plan for their child's inclusion, that staff had unreasonably restrained their child, and that the council had unreasonably pressured Mr and Mrs C into sending a placing request.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review its children and families department's current procedures for convening meetings similar to that held in Mr and Mrs C's case, to ensure that adequate notice is given, the agenda specified, the duration estimated and appropriate caveats given about the scope of note taking; and
• provide confirmation that steps have been taken to ensure that all obsolete information sheets on the process of appeal against exclusion have been destroyed and replaced with the current document.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C live near tenants of a housing association. Over a number of years, they told the association about continuing antisocial behaviour by their neighbours. They were dissatisfied with the time the association took to respond, the actions taken to address their concerns, and the way the executive committee conducted their investigation of the complaints.

We found that on numerous occasions the association did not interview Mr and Mrs C as they should have done, in line with their antisocial behaviour policy. They had not, therefore, responded appropriately to their concerns, so we upheld the complaint about responses and made four recommendations. We were generally satisfied that the association's other actions were reasonable, although we made two further recommendations in relation to monitoring.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise for failing to meet their published timescales in relation to Mr and Mrs C's reports of antisocial behaviour;
• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to respond to a statement about maintenance of their neighbours’ garden;
• review their training and procedures to ensure that relevant staff are aware of the commitment to hold interviews in relation to reports of antisocial behaviour, and the timescales for these;
• review their procedures to ensure actions taken in relation to reports of antisocial behaviour are properly recorded;
• review their procedures to ensure that performance in relation to timescales for action following reports of antisocial behaviour is monitored and that the results of this monitoring are fed back to senior management on a regular basis; and
• review their procedures to ensure that any monitoring of garden maintenance beyond bi-annual walkabouts is properly recorded and the records retained for a reasonable period.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment that a hospital provided to her brother (Mr A) after he was admitted with increasing confusion and suspected pneumonia. Mrs C, who was her brother's welfare guardian, was concerned that he was not given enough fluids and food; he was discharged prematurely and was readmitted a few hours later; there was a failure to diagnose his fractured leg; changes were made to his medication; and about poor communication.

After taking independent advice from three of our medical advisers (a nurse, a consultant physician and a consultant psychiatrist), we found that nursing staff did not fully take into account Mr A's specific needs. He had a long standing mental illness and, despite knowing that there was a problem with him eating and drinking, there was no specific information on how to manage this. We found that Mr A's fluid intake was not properly monitored and there was a lack of consideration given to blood test results that indicated possible signs of dehydration.

We did not consider that Mr A's discharge was unreasonable, because dehydration is difficult to diagnose. Hospital staff had taken steps to speak with Mr A's community psychiatric nurse (CPN) to establish his usual behaviour, and it was agreed that the CPN would visit him at home later that day to see if he needed psychiatric review. In addition, when it was known that his blood test results were abnormal, he was readmitted to hospital. Although we could not be certain when Mr A fractured his leg, he was promptly reviewed and diagnosed after bruising and swelling were identified.

We were also of the view that it was appropriate to stop some of Mr A's medication (which had a sedating effect) because this could make his pneumonia worse. However, we considered that medical staff could have explained this to the family when Mr A was first admitted to hospital. In addition, although we found that the hospital obtained appropriate information from Mr A's GP, we thought that nursing staff could have sought advice sooner from the CPN about Mr A's eating and drinking.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• review fluid intake and output monitoring for patients with communication difficulties who have suspected or actual dehydration, and audit their documentation of patients from the ward Mr A was in;
• ensure that the educational and training needs of nursing staff in the ward have been met in terms of holistically managing patients with mental illness;
• draw to the attention of relevant staff involved in Mr A's care the importance of ensuring that relatives, particularly those with welfare guardianship, are fully informed of the reasons for any changes in treatment in a timely manner and that the content of discussions are sufficiently documented; and
• apologise to Mrs C and Mr A for the failings we identified.