Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained to the college on behalf of his daughter (Miss A), after the Student Awards Agency for Scotland took recovery action against her. This highlighted a disagreement about the date on which Miss A's studies had ended, as Mr C said that Miss A was still attending college after the date on which the college said they had withdrawn her from her studies. This affected the amount of student award she was due to repay.

The college had investigated this and decided that the evidence supported their recorded withdrawal date. As part of our investigation, we reviewed the evidence that they provided, along with Mr C's evidence. Having done so, we considered the college's position on the matter to be reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint. However, we noted that it was not the college's practice to issue withdrawal letters and that Miss A, therefore, received no formal notification at the time of her withdrawal. We took the view that this might have avoided the subsequent disagreement and complaint, and made a recommendation to address this.

Mr C also complained about the college's complaints handling, as he was unhappy with the the time it had taken for him to complete their complaints process. We found that stage one of the college's process was informal and that three separate members of staff had dealt with Mr C during this stage before his complaint was formalised and escalated to stage two. We considered that this informal stage was unnecessarily protracted. Once the complaint was formalised, we found it was handled reasonably. However, we noted that throughout the process the college failed to proactively signpost Mr C to the next stage. In the circumstances, we upheld his complaint about complaints handling. However, we considered that the imminent introduction of a standardised complaints handling procedure for the further education sector will address this and so we made no further recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the college:

• revise their policy to ensure that students who are withdrawn from courses are notified of this in writing.

Summary

Mr C complained that the college failed to respond to his complaints about the teaching staff on his course. We found that there were a number of shortcomings in the college's handling of Mr C's complaints. It took them too long to respond, not all issues he had raised were properly considered, and there was a lack of robust follow-up action to improve Mr C's learning experience. The college apologised unreservedly and reimbursed Mr C's fees.

Recommendations

We recommended that the college:

• provide update training to all staff involved in Stage 1 complaints handling.

Summary

Ms C received an unusually high water bill. She checked the pipework for leaks and confirmed there had been no changes to her business practice to explain the increased use of water. Business Stream said that as the bill had returned to normal, it could not have been a problem with the meter. They also checked the meter as Ms C was having trouble gaining access to the meter.

Ms C was unhappy that she still had not been told how to access the meter and that Business Stream could not explain why the usage had gone up for a short period. Our investigation found that Business Stream had undertaken most of the checks they should have done to reassure themselves the problem was not on the public network. However, they had not confirmed with Scottish Water whether there was any work being carried out on the network at the time. We found that they should have done so, and we upheld this complaint, as well as that about access, as we also found that they should have done more to help Ms C access the meter. However, we did not uphold her complaint that they should have explained why the increase had occurred, as there were matters outwith their control on the private side of the supply, about which they had no knowledge. Business Stream was only required to explain why they were satisfied that the additional usage was not caused by problems on the public side of the meter.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• confirm with Scottish Water whether there were any issues with the network during the relevant period that could have caused the meter to register increased usage prior to pursuing the bill; and
• arrange a visit by their meter reader to ensure that Ms C can access the correct meter.

Summary

After an incident, Mr C, who is a prisoner, was placed on closed visits (where a prisoner and their visitor cannot make physical contact) for a month. Mr C complained to us that the prison did not review his closed visit status appropriately. He said the review board did not consider his closed visit status within a reasonable time and the results of the review board were not communicated to him properly.

Our investigation found that a prisoner can be placed on closed visits if they behave inappropriately. The prison's guidance says that a prisoner's closed visit status will be reviewed monthly by a review board and the prisoner will be advised of the outcome. In Mr C's case, his closed visit status was reviewed by the prison a little under seven weeks after he was placed on closed visits. In addition, the prison told us that the results were fed back to him and he received a paper copy of the decision. Mr C's evidence to us conflicted with the information provided by the prison. Because of that, we were unable to determine with certainty whether the decision had been clearly communicated to Mr C, so we upheld his complaint made recommendations to address this.

Mr C also complained to us about the internal complaints committee (ICC). He said the officer who responded to the earlier stage of his complaint was also a member of the ICC and he felt that was inappropriate. We did not uphold this complaint. We noted that the ICC is responsible for considering a prisoner's complaint at the later stage. The prison rules and complaints handling guidance state that the ICC must be made up of at least three members, two of whom must be officers or employees from the prison. There is nothing to suggest that an officer who responded to the earlier stage of the prisoner's complaint cannot also be involved in the ICC stage. The prison told us that they were satisfied there was no conflict of interest in having the same officer sit as a member of the ICC. We were satisfied that the prison appropriately exercised discretion in deciding that the officer could also sit as a member of the ICC and that they did so in line with the prison rules and guidance.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• ensure the prison reviews the wording of the closed visit protocol to ensure that the timescale for review is clear; and
• take steps to ensure that a prisoner confirms he has received a copy of the written decision of the review board by signing for receipt of the document.

Summary

Ms C had been made bankrupt, and the Office of the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AiB) was handling matters relating to her bankruptcy. She complained that AiB unreasonably delayed in dealing with payment protection insurance compensation funds and failed to respond adequately to her request for information.

We told Ms C that we could not look at what AiB did with the funds, but that we could look at how they responded when she queried this. Our investigation found that it took AiB seven weeks to deal with this, although they had explained the delay to her. In the circumstances, while the length of time taken was not ideal, we did not uphold this complaint.

We did, however, uphold the complaint that they failed to respond adequately to her request for information. We found that although there was no evidence that AiB misinformed Ms C, there was nothing to show that they had actively kept her informed during their investigation about what was happening or when it was likely to be concluded. To do so would have been in keeping with good practice in dealing with correspondence and complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Office of the Accountant in Bankruptcy:

• ensure that notes are made of phone conversations with enquirers and complainants; and
• ensure that enquirers and complainants are kept updated, in keeping with the AiB's complaints and contact policy, and that such updates are logged.

Summary

Mrs C complained about Forestry Commission Scotland (the commission) in relation to deer fencing in a rural area. A management plan had been developed for the area in relation to the introduction of native woodland, and, as part of this, under relevant forestry regulations Forestry Enterprise Scotland (an agency of the commission) were required to prepare an environmental statement as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment. The statement concluded that block fencing was the most appropriate for the area, as it would allow deer continued access to a lochside from the hillside as part of their natural seasonal movement. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other bodies had, however, expressed concern about this fencing, feeling that this would increase the risk of black grouse (a UK protected species) hitting the fencing. The commission granted consent for the project under the regulations in 2008, with a condition attached in relation to the fencing, stating this would involve further assessment.

Mrs C later discovered that a ring fence was to be erected rather than the block fencing originally proposed. This would prevent deer access to the north of the lochside. Mrs C complained about this to the commission both at a local and national level, saying that the consent granted had been breached, and that concerns about deer welfare and the opinions of local residents and tourists had been disregarded. However, the commission said that this decision had been taken due to the concerns raised about black grouse, and that they did not consider the consent to have been breached. We did not uphold this complaint as we accepted the position of the commission. We noted that the information in the statement was not binding, the decisions made by the commission in relation to the consent were discretionary (ie they were decisions that they were entitled to make) and they were also given scope for review by the attached condition, although we did note that the changes were significant. We made recommendations in relation to the condition and registration process, so that in future the local community would be given the opportunity to be notified and further consulted where appropriate.

Mrs C also complained about communication failings. We upheld this, as we found that that the commission had failed to consult and communicate with the local community as had been informally agreed, but we also noted that the commission had since taken steps to address this. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint that her complaints had not been dealt with impartially.

Recommendations

We recommended that the commission:

• review its procedures for the use of conditions related to consent under the Regulations, and establish a process and criteria for any submissions relative to conditions, assessment of these and decisions reached, to ensure clarity;
• develop an online database to ensure the application register and relevant documentation are accessible; and
• prepare a further written agreement clearly outlining advance notification periods they must adhere to in relation to advising the local community of continued implementation of the ongoing management plan for the area.

Summary

An advocacy worker (Ms C) complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs A about the special school attended by their son (Master A). Following an episode of challenging behaviour, the school requested that he be collected and taken home. She said that when he was picked up, he reported that he was sore, and was later found to have unexplained bruising to his body. Ms C made six complaints about this.

We upheld three of Ms C's complaints. Our investigation found no evidence that the school had unreasonably physically restrained Master A. Nor did we find evidence that the school had not provided one-to-one support, as we could find no consistent record of their having agreed to do so. We did, however, find significant shortcomings in the school's record-keeping in relation to the incident and also of meetings where Master A's needs were discussed. We did not uphold the complaint that his teacher did not have sufficient training or experience.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failure to keep accurate and consistent records of meetings.

Summary

Mrs C was unhappy with the way in which the council dealt with her complaint. She said it was confusing; her complaint was not clarified; she was not offered a three stage process to which she said she was entitled; and her allegations about missing documentation were not acted upon.

In investigating her complaint, we carefully considered all of the information provided by Mrs C and by the council. A review of the documentation showed that although some of Mrs C's complaints were dealt with under the council's social work complaints procedure, it had been inappropriate to do so as she was not a user of social work services. After that, although she was correctly told that other complaints could not be dealt with under this procedure, she was not advised of the council's standard complaints procedure nor was she signposted to us in the event that she was unhappy with the outcome of her complaint. We noted that the reason that she expected to be able to use a three stage procedure was because some of her complaints had incorrectly been put through the (three stage) social work complaint procedure. Our investigation went on to find that the terms of Mrs C's complaint were confirmed with her; that the council were unable to disclose all the available information to her in accordance with the Data Protection Act and that the offer of a meeting that had been made still stood. Therefore, while we upheld Mrs C's complaint about lack of proper advice about the complaints procedure, we did not uphold her other complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for failing to provide adequate information about the complaints procedure; and
• ensure that all staff who deal with the public are fully apprised of how their complaints procedures work in order that they can give appropriate advice.

Summary

Following the death of his elderly mother, Mr C was appointed executor of her estate. As beneficiary, Mr C subsequently inherited his mother's house, which he kept as a second home. During the executry period, the property had been exempt from council tax. Mr C made seven complaints against the council about delay in sending him correct council tax notices for the property for 2010/11 and 2011/12; failure to issue receipts for cheques he sent; failure to reply to correspondence, and delay in responding to his complaint and to deal with the issues he had raised.

Our investigation upheld four of Mr C's seven complaints. We considered that the need for the protracted correspondence could have been avoided if the council had acted promptly, when informed of the confirmation the estate, to find out who had become liable for council tax. They did not do this and in an invoice sent to Mr C (as executor) they wrongly extended exemption of council tax, although they later corrected this. The council was, in light of that correction, obliged to collect the correct amount of council tax owing. We upheld Mr C's complaints about the failure to issue receipts or reply to letters, and about delays in the complaints process.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the adequacy of their current procedures in respect of communicating with executors, and consider providing a leaflet to explain exemptions, discounts and the information they will require after an executry is confirmed; and
• apologise to Mr C and waive their ability to pursue the sum outstanding for 2010/11.

Summary

Ms C's complaint was about proposals to site a doctors' surgery behind her home. Ms C had objected to the original proposals in 2004. The acknowledgment of her objection indicated that she would be told the outcome, but that did not happen. Consent for the initial application was issued in 2006, after the application was referred to Scottish Ministers. Ms C, unaware of this, obtained planning consent and a building warrant for a rear kitchen extension to her property which was completed in 2007. In late 2009 an amended application was submitted for the surgery proposals.

Ms C made three complaints. We upheld two - that the council failed to tell her that the initial planning permission had been granted, which our investigation found was clearly the case, and that they failed to respond appropriately to her complaints correspondence. On the latter we found that the timescales exceeded the council's published targets. We did not uphold her complaint that the council failed to ensure the site plans were updated to show her extension, as site plans were the responsibility of the developer. However, as we found that the council's geographical management system did not show Ms C's kitchen extension we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• examine why, given the completion in January 2008 of the approved building works to form a rear extension to Ms C's home, that extension is not shown on the council's geographical mapping system; and
• consider reviewing their current procedure of acknowledgement of receipt of representations on planning applications to direct relevant parties to information publically available on the council's planning portal.