Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C was an advocate representing eight former students at the college. Mr C complained that the college unreasonably failed to deliver timetabled teaching hours or provide necessary additional support, given the students' circumstances and needs. Mr C also complained that the college unreasonably failed to address or listen to the students' informal complaints, and did not reasonably handle two formal complaints and an appeal. We found that there were no college records of the teaching or support provided, so we could not uphold the complaints. There was also no evidence available to prove that the students had made informal complaints, or that they submitted the first formal complaint. We found that the college handled the second formal complaint reasonably. However, we upheld the complaint that the appeal was not reasonably handled. The senior college staff member responsible for the appeal should not have been involved, as they had previously been responsible for dealing with the students' second complaint. To avoid either a real or a perceived conflict of interest, it would have been good practice for another member of staff to have handled the appeal from the outset. In addition, there was no minute or note of the appeal hearing and its outcomes.

Although there was insufficient evidence for us to be able to uphold most of Mr C's complaints, we were concerned that the college had destroyed records before the students had an opportunity to complain to us. We had accepted the students' complaints as being in time in terms of the law that set up our office, which says they can do so within a year of the date of whatever they are complaining about. While we would always encourage people to approach us soon after they have completed the complaints process of an organisation, it does not matter whether they approach us in the first month or the twelfth month – they have a right to complain during that time. We would, therefore, have expected the college to have kept important records relating to these students and their complaint for this period of time. As the college no longer had the records, and given the apparent discrepancies in some of the destroyed and the remaining records, we were concerned that natural justice may not have been served in this matter. In our view, the college gave weight and credibility to the anecdotal evidence of staff, while dismissing and discrediting the anecdotal evidence of the students without having retained evidence of the records considered during the complaint. We, therefore, made a number of recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the college:

• include a statement in the complaints procedure that where a senior member of college staff responsible for dealing with a complaint has already been involved (in either the substance of the complaint or in considering the complaint at an earlier stage) they should immediately stand aside and allow another senior member of staff to deal with the complaint;
• ensure that complaint meetings and appeal hearings are minuted, and the outcome of the meeting or hearing is communicated in writing to the complainant(s);
• contact the eight students to offer a further date for the appeal hearing originally set for 20 September 2010; and
• provide the Ombudsman with evidence that they now maintain complete student records, including all relevant correspondence, records of contact, communications and complaints documentation, and have a policy that ensures records will be maintained for an appropriate period and in particular when complaints are extant.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of an association that in October 2011, without warning, they received a water bill for over £19,000. He complained to Business Stream that, given the association's past history, the bill must be incorrect. Further bills followed despite Mr C's contention that the bill was incorrect but that it was not until five months later that he was told that his account had been reassessed and recalculated. While Mr C wrote and said that he wanted a more detailed explanation, he heard nothing more until July 2012 and this merely enclosed a copy of the March 2012 letter. Mr C continued to complain but a detailed reply was not sent until August 2012. Mr C was aggrieved that Business Stream had not read the association's water meter correctly between August 2008 and October 2011. He further complained that they did not adequately investigate the disputed high consumption since the association's meter was installed in August 2008.

Our investigation took the complaints correspondence, statements of account and invoices, and Business Stream's internal computerised records into account. We also made further enquiries of Business Stream. The investigation confirmed that there had been difficulty in finding the meter and that it had not been read until January 2011. It was read again in October 2011 and confirmed to be correct. A 'high consumption' letter was sent to Mr C on the day that the bill was issued. As a consequence of Mr C's insistence that his bill was incorrect, Business Stream established that the opening figure for his account was incorrect and they reassessed his bill accordingly. As there had been a problem with the initial meter reading, we upheld this complaint.

By January 2012, Business Stream had confirmed the problem with the reading and they started to implement required changes a few days later. What they did not do was to explain this clearly, in a timely manner. They did not tell Mr C this until March 2012 nor did they explain the situation clearly. They then failed to address his further letters properly until August 2012. Although we did not uphold this complaint, we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• formally apologise to Mr C for their error;
• reduce Mr C's bill by a further five percent; and
• apologise to Mr C for the way in which they handled his continued representations.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream did not tell him when his water meter was replaced. He said that after this the water meter was not read in accordance with the relevant service standards and for an extended period, unnoticed by him, all his water bills were estimated. Mr C said he only discovered that the meter had been replaced and that his bills had been estimated when he received a large catch up bill. Mr C told us he believed that the new meter might have been faulty for a period as his metered water usage was higher than he had expected. He said that his bill could have been updated earlier when actual meter readings were first taken, which would have alerted him to the problem earlier. Mr C was also dissatisfied with the handling of his complaint. He felt that it had taken Business Stream too long to respond and he was not offered compensatory payments in line with stated service standards.

We found that the meter was the property of Scottish Water and had been replaced as part of their rolling replacement programme. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about this as our investigation found that there was no obligation on Business Stream to tell Mr C about the exchange. They had also offered to carry out a meter accuracy test when Mr C queried the accuracy of his catch up bill. Mr C had declined this because he said he believed the meter was now recording water usage accurately and because Business Stream would levy a charge if the meter was tested and found to be accurate.

We did, however, uphold Mr C's other complaints. We agreed that under the terms of their licence Business Stream should have ensured that two actual meter readings were taken each year, one of which could have been provided by Mr C. However, they failed to do so for a period of around two years. We noted that they had already offered Mr C an apology and a compensatory payment of £100 in recognition of this failing.

Our investigation also found that it took around fifteen months from the date of the first reading for Mr C to receive a bill which reflected his metered usage. Business Stream told us that they had difficulties entering the actual reading because the computer system of the Central Market Agency, which it was beyond their control to update, did not accurately record Mr C's meter details and supply identification. However, they provided no evidence to suggest that on discovering this they pursued the matter with the Central Market Agency at the earliest opportunity, as they should have done. Nor did they alert Mr C to the difficulties they were having.

We found that there was an unreasonable delay in handling Mr C's complaint. Business Stream failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay when it was brought to their attention and they took too long to apply the £20 credit that was due to Mr C in recognition of the delay (in line with their service standards). We also identified that Mr C was owed a further £20 credit.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• investigate the sequence of events that led to the errors identified in relation to the meter exchange and supply identification number, and identify any opportunities for improvements to business processes;
• make a further payment of £20 in acknowledgement of the delay in making the original £20 credit in line with Service Standards as is the complainants entitlement. Business Stream should consider in the circumstances whether the credit applied to the account should exceed their standard £20 payment; and
• apologise for delays in handling the complaint and for failing to award compensatory payments in line with service standards.

Summary

In 2007, Mr and Mrs C bought some old buildings and adjacent land. They intended to convert the buildings to properties for sale. When they bought the land there was a trough and a tap on it, although the meter for this supply was on land owned by a neighbour (Mr D). Mr and Mrs C believed this was Mr D's supply. Mrs C told us that they agreed with Scottish Water and Mr D that they would use this supply for water needed in their building project. They understood that at the conclusion of the project the supply would revert to Mr D.

When the project was completed in 2010 Mr and Mrs C sought to have the supply disconnected. They were told this would involve a cost. They explained that the supply belonged to Mr D and that they thought he was still using water from the original supply and that the meter was his. Business Stream undertook some investigation and established that Mr D was not using the supply. After ten months of correspondence Business Stream confirmed that Mr and Mrs C were responsible, as the owners of the address supplied. Correspondence continued for almost another year when Business Stream sent a detailed, written response. This, however, contained an error which Business Stream then clarified. Throughout this period Mr and Mrs C were paying fixed charges for the supply, which would end when the supply was disconnected.

Our investigation found that the location of the taps and trough was key. The owner or occupier of the land where the taps are is responsible for the supply. This meant that when the land was sold in 2007 Mr and Mrs C became responsible. We accepted they had not appreciated this at the time, but we could not uphold their complaint that they were charged for a supply that was not their responsibility. However, we found that there had been serious failings in Business Stream's response to their concerns. Mr and Mrs C raised these in July 2010 but did not receive a response until April 2011. We found that by October 2010 Business Stream should have had all the information needed to respond. Their eventual response in April 2011 was correct but was not sufficiently clear, and had not resolved the underlying confusion. However, it had also said that Mr and Mrs C could call to discuss this. When they did so, Business Stream simply noted that there had been a phone conversation and considered that Mrs C understood the position. It appears that, despite a number of attempts by Mrs C to make contact, it was not until March 2012 that they realised a further clearer response was needed. In the circumstances, we found that Business Stream's actions had delayed Mr and Mrs C's ability to organise a disconnection, and that their response to the concerns expressed about this had been inadequate.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• reduce the fixed charges liability for this supply by 50 percent for a certain period, if they receive a disconnection request within six weeks of the date of this decision; and
• apologise to Mrs C for the failings in communication about her concerns.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council delayed carrying out an emergency repair on the window of the communal hallway at his home. He also complained that they failed to compensate him under the terms of the Right to Repair scheme for the delay in repairing the window and to comply with their responsibilities to regularly paint the communal stairway.

Our investigation found that the repair did not qualify for compensation under the Right to Repair scheme as it was a repair to a communal area. We also found that although the original tenancy agreement indicated that the council would paint the stairway every five years, they had since signed the Scottish Secure Tenancy agreement, and that stair painting could now only be carried out when agreement was reached with all owners. The council demonstrated to us that they had tried to get other residents to agree to this work. However, we did find that, as the council accepted that the broken window had affected their tenant and carried out the repair, they should have done so when it was first brought to their attention. For this reason, and because their joiner failed to properly board up the window, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• write to Mr C to apologise for the delay in repairing the window.

Summary

Mrs C complained that after she experienced sewage flooding into her garden, the council's environmental health and building control departments failed to take sufficient action. She alleged that as a consequence, the health of her family had been compromised. She was also unhappy that the council had allowed the owner of the property causing the problem to live in his house without having had a completion certificate provided. Mrs C said that after she complained formally about these matters, the council failed to respond properly to her concerns and did not deal with her formal complaint in terms of their own complaints process.

We investigated the complaint and took all the information provided by the council and Mrs C into account. This included the complaints files, internal emails, water testing results and inspection notes, together with drainage plans and the relevant environmental health and building legislation. Our investigation found that, while the council took appropriate action after a meeting, for about five months beforehand there had been no plan or impetus to resolve the matter, and so we upheld this part of the complaint. After the meeting, environmental health and building standards departments worked with the neighbour to find a resolution to the problem. There were some delays, but these were caused by the neighbour. The council took the view that in both this matter and that of the completion certificate, they would rather work with the neighbour's cooperation than take enforcement action against him. We found that this was a decision they were entitled to take. In terms of complaints handling, after Mrs C complained, the council found her correspondence challenging to deal with because of the amount that she sent them. Nevertheless, after tracking all the documentation as part of this investigation, we found that, overall, they dealt with Mrs C's complaint appropriately.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the initial delay; and
• apologise for their failure in this matter.

Summary

An application for planning consent was made to the council for a single wind turbine on an industrial estate about 800 metres from Mr C's home. Mr C lived too far away to be notified and was unaware that this had happened. He only became aware of this when the wind turbine was built. Mr C then had extensive email contact with one of his local councillors who tried to answer Mr C's questions or to direct them to a senior planning officer. The councillor then contacted the chief executive's office and the matter was dealt with by that office as a complaint review and was acknowledged as such to Mr C. Mr C responded, stressing that he was not at that time making a complaint but was gathering information. He said he reserved the right to make a complaint later.

Mr C complained to us about the council's complaints handing, and after investigation, we upheld two of his five complaints. The most significant of these was that the chief executive's service dealt with and responded to his questions by way of a complaint review. However, Mr C had specifically said that he was not making a complaint, and he had quite clearly not previously complained. It was, therefore, inappropriate for them to have dealt with his correspondence by way of a complaints review.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that, if an elected member passses a matter to the Chief Executive's service to be dealt with at the final stage of the council's complaints procedure, the service check with the aggrieved person that they wish the matter to be dealt with that way, and which issues are to be addressed.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of the residents of his street about noise disturbance from a nearby construction site. A supermarket was being built, and Mr C's complaints centred around early morning and/or late night working and deliveries; failure to enforce adherence to planning conditions; failure to monitor and/or enforce action on breaches of conditions; failure to address his complaints; and communication issues.

Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from our planning adviser, concluded that there had been some communication issues and failures in complaints handling. However, on the majority of complaints we found that the council had taken reasonable and proportionate action to monitor the site. When Mr C first complained about early/late working, the council investigated and then issued a notice to restrict the times of certain types of work and/or deliveries to the site. While there were some breaches of these conditions, we found that the monitoring action taken by the council, which included unannounced site visits, was reasonable and proportionate. We upheld two of Mr C's nine complaints, about shortcomings in correspondence and about a council official's meeting with the residents.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology for the failings identified; and
• review the processes for deciding what is a service request and what is a complaint, and ensure that staff are adequately informed of and trained in the application of the processes; also ensure that the complaints literature makes this clear to complainants.

Summary

Some six months after the council granted planning consent with conditions for two wind turbines near his home, Mr C found out about the planning application. When he researched the background of the application, he found a defect in the council's referencing of the site on their website. He also thought that there were flaws in the council's handling of noise assessment in the officers' report on the application.

Mr C submitted three complaints against the council, of which we upheld two. Our investigation found that the council's website did contain a flaw. Anyone responding to the public notice of the application and entering the planning case reference on the search page was directed to a site map. This should have been centred on the geographical coordinates of the two turbines, but was actually centred on an unrelated locality several kilometres away. This had not, however, affected Mr C as he had not seen the public notice in time to make representations about this. The council responded to Mr C's concerns by checking some 847 wind turbine applications. They found an error in five of these, took corrective action and offered an explanation. We also found that the officers' report contained errors in distances and directions, which should not have occurred. We did not uphold Mr C's third complaint that the council failed to ensure that an appropriate and accurate noise assessment was carried out before considering the application. Our investigation found that the council had routinely used a simplified method and had imposed appropriate conditions, which had not relied specifically on the figures in the applicant's noise assessment.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind case officers preparing reports on applications of the need to check the accuracy of distances and orientations.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to repair a faulty meter that was installed in his property in 2010 and that, when he told them in February 2011 that he had had to remove it because it had failed in bad weather, they did not replace it until March 2012. Mr C said when Scottish Water (who retain some responsibility for meters even when a customer of Business Stream) picked up the meter he had been told they could not be bothered installing a new one. In March 2012 Mr C was told that his bills from 2011 to 2012 would be recalculated. He was unhappy that this meant that from March 2011 to March 2012 he was being billed on an unmeasured basis, costing him much more than if he had been on a meter. The bills had previously been worked out on an estimated basis. Mr C also said that he had applied for e-billing but had problems accessing his account.

We were not able to uphold Mr C's claim that Scottish Water had said at a meeting that they would replace the meter in June 2010. As there was a zero reading when it was removed in March 2011, Mr C had not paid for any water usage, and had only paid standard charges, from June 2010 until the meter was removed. Mr C was also not charged for the installation of the new meter. Business Stream were charged but did not pass this cost on.

In March 2011, Scottish Water told Business Stream that Mr C had not let them install a meter. Business Stream emailed Mr C to tell him this and that he would be billed on an unmeasured basis. Mr C did not receive this email. We also found that Mr C tried to sign up for e-billing in April 2011, but this was not activated until July 2011. Despite this, he did not receive a bill that should have been sent to him by post in May 2011, given e-billing was not yet available to him.

Our investigation found that within two days of physically removing the meter Scottish Water should have updated a central database with the information that it had been removed. They did not do so for twelve months, which meant that all Mr C's bills for that period were calculated on the wrong basis. There is a responsibility on customers to ensure they are paying properly for the services they receive. However, this was not a case where Mr C had failed to provide information. Both Business Stream and Scottish Water were aware that the information was wrong and that Mr C was being billed on the wrong basis for twelve months. Mr C had moved very quickly to have a meter installed in 2012, when he became aware of this. We, therefore, took the view that, if he had received bills on the basis that he did not have a meter, it was likely he would have acted quickly to resolve this. While this is only a likely possibility rather than a certainty, a twelve-month failure to ensure that the bills were accurate prevented Mr C from acting to reduce them. On this basis, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• recalculate the bill for the period March 2011 until the meter was installed, based on an estimate of water usage using recent readings;
• apologise to Mr C for the failing identified; and
• share our decision letter with Scottish Water.
•