Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream did not give him notice that the water pressure at his business premises would be much higher when Scottish Water upgraded the pipes in his area. He said that there were a number of large underground leaks in his premises, and it took him several months to detect and fix all of them. As a result of this, his water bill rose substantially, although he was given a rebate sum for part of this.

We asked Business Stream if either they or Scottish Water should tell customers if the pressure in the network is to increase. Business Stream said that Scottish Water manage their network on a daily basis, which increases and decreases pressure. They said that Scottish Water do not advise if there are to be changes unless the change in water pressure is to be so great that it would cause an operating issue to a commercial customer. They told us that Scottish Water renewed the old pipe work in Mr C’s area, but did not increase the water pressure there, although the new pipe work increased the water pressure at Mr C’s premises due to increased efficiency and reduced water loss. However, there was no requirement in these circumstances for Business Stream or Scottish Water to give him notice about this so we did not uphold that complaint.

Mr C also complained that Business Stream failed to deal with his complaints appropriately and delayed in reading his water meter. We found that they had delayed in responding to his complaints and in obtaining his water meter readings, as well as asking him to provide information that he had already sent to them. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• issue a written apology for the failure to deal with Mr C's complaints appropriately.

Summary

Following a leak in 2010, Mr C discovered that his business premises shared a water meter with a neighbouring property. His business had been charged for the water supply to both businesses for several years without his knowledge. Once the situation was brought to Business Stream's attention, they offered Mr C a credit amount. He complained, however, that the amount was not adequate and that he should receive a refund of 50 percent of the water charges over an eight year period. Mr C raised further concerns about Business Stream's handling of his complaint and the fact that he was charged recovery fees and pursued for outstanding payments when his account was supposed to be on hold while his complaint was investigated.

Our investigation found that, generally, it is the property owner's responsibility to familiarise themselves with the pipe and water meter infrastructure supplying their premises. However, the evidence submitted to us showed that Mr C had specifically asked in 2006 whether his meter was serving two properties. Scottish Water inspected the meter and advised that it only served his property and we considered it reasonable for Mr C to accept this advice at face value. We did not find it appropriate for Mr C to be affected financially by Scottish Water's inaccurate information.

Although the meter was serving two properties, we did not consider that it was necessarily the case that both businesses would use the same amount of water. As such, we did not consider a 50 percent refund of all water charges to be appropriate. Mr C's meter was split in 2010 and accurate readings were available to assess his typical daily usage. When calculating the credit offered to Mr C, Business Stream applied the recalculated typical daily usage back to the date his account was created. We found this to be an appropriate gesture.

We did, however, find that Business Stream inappropriately continued to issue reminder invoices and late-payment fees to Mr C when his account should have been suspended. We were also critical of them for initially misunderstanding Mr C's complaint, and contributing to a delay in the matter being resolved.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• pay Mr C £40, in line with their service standards, for the delay to his complaint being resolved and the failure to issue a final response; and
• apologise to Mr C for the issues highlighted in our investigation.

Summary

Business Stream contacted Mr C asking for details of his business so that he could be billed for water. He was initially reluctant to provide the requested details but after further discussions, Business Stream issued his first bill. Mr C was unhappy to find that this was for a substantial sum, as it had been backdated to when his business moved into the premises. He complained about the way Business Stream went about setting up his account and about the way they pursued him for water charges dating back several years, despite the absence of previous bills.

We found that the property had previously been occupied by another business, who had told Business Stream when they moved out. The property was, therefore, classed as vacant from that date and Mr C had a responsibility as the new occupant to make arrangements to pay for the water supply. We acknowledged that Mr C may not have been aware of his obligations due to changes that had been made to the water industry shortly before he moved into the property. However, we did not find that Business Stream had any obligation to actively check whether a new occupant had moved in. They had identified Mr C's business during a routine audit of vacant sites, and we found it was appropriate for them to contact him at that point.

Mr C had challenged the accuracy of meter readings that were taken during the period that his property was believed to be vacant. We accepted professional advice indicating that the amount of water used was in line with what would be expected for a property of this size and type. We also noted that a single water bill had been issued, with the first and most recent readings not being in dispute. As such, whilst Business Stream were unable to provide evidence that each meter reading was accurate on the date attributed to it, we were satisfied that the correct amount had been charged for the water that was used.

We were, however, critical of Business Stream for continuing to pursue Mr C for outstanding payments whilst his complaint was being investigated and the amounts were in dispute.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• apologise to Mr C for continuing to pursue him for payment whilst his dispute was being investigated;
• contact Mr C with their offer of setting up a payment plan; and
• ensure that any late payment fees applied to Mr C's account to date are removed.

Summary

Mr C was spoken to by prison officers when he visited his friend in prison. He was told that a member of staff had said that his behaviour made them uncomfortable. He later phoned the prison governor to complain and then wrote to him about the matter. He considered that the governor’s response did not adequately address his complaints.

We upheld two of Mr C's three complaints. We found that the governor had issued a response after speaking to Mr C, but before he received his written complaint. Although the governor did not consider that the written complaint raised any new concerns, we found that the initial response did not adequately address some of the issues Mr C raised. At the very least, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) should have contacted Mr C to check if he wanted a further response in addition to the initial response. The governor also failed to address these issues in further responses to Mr C.

Mr C also said that the governor failed to provide him with accurate information in his responses. We did not find any evidence of this. However, Mr C said that the SPS held a file which incorrectly said that he was a registered sex offender. We did not find any evidence of a file, but in their response to our enquiries, the SPS told us that Mr C was a registered sex offender. However, they subsequently confirmed that this was incorrect.

Mr C was warned about comments that he made in correspondence about a member of staff. He continued to make comments about the member of staff and the governor told him that he would no longer be able to visit any prisoner in the prison. The decision to ban Mr C from visiting the prison was one that the SPS were entitled to take (ie a discretionary decision). The SPSO Act says that we cannot question discretionary decisions when there is no evidence of administrative error. We found no evidence of administrative error by the SPS in reaching that decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• issue a written apology for the failure to adequately address Mr C's complaint;
• make the relevant staff aware of our finding on this matter;
• review the case to identify how they can prevent inaccurate information from being recorded about ex-prisoners in similar circumstances; and
• issue a written apology for incorrectly stating that Mr C was a registered sex offender.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) dealt with his complaint about a charity. His concerns related to both the quality of the OSCR investigations and their communication with Mr C during and following their investigations.

Our investigation found no administrative failure in terms of the content of the investigation, but we did note that it had taken far too long to complete. In addition we noted that OSCR had failed to keep Mr C fully informed of the progress of the case and had not dealt appropriately with his subsequent complaint. We upheld these aspects of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator:

• provide an apology to Mr C for the injustice identified in our decision notice;
• introduce some limited form of routine updating to complainants and alter their inquiry and investigation policy accordingly; and
• review their complaints policy and consult with the Ombudsman before introducing a revised version.

Summary

Ms C had to move out of her home temporarily while the council carried out repair work because woodworm had affected most of her property. Ms C said that the council assured her that the work would be carried out with the minimum of fuss and that her home would be returned in the same condition. She said that, during this time, on several occasions she and her partner were contacted by workmen to gain access to her home, although she had provided a spare set of keys before the work started. On one occasion, while on holiday, the council had called to advise her that they would have to force entry to the property if they could not get a set of keys, due to an emergency that had arisen involving her neighbour. On another occasion, Ms C said that she was asked to take keys to her home and lock up at the end of the day but on returning later, found the workers had left her home insecure. Ms C was also unhappy that the council had not got her to sign off individual work carried out at the property and that a housing officer told her that no cleaning or redecoration would be provided after the repair work. She also said that the council had not responded reasonably to two letters of complaint she sent.

We upheld most of Ms C's complaints. Our investigation established that the council met with Ms C before the work was carried out to discuss the significant amount of work to be done. As Ms C had highlighted that she had health problems, arrangements were made for a spare set of keys to be given to the tradesmen, and her partner was to be contacted in the event that the council needed to discuss any matter related to the work. During the time of the repair work we found evidence to support that there were problems with the different trades accessing the property. Whilst the council took steps a couple of weeks later to fit a key safe outside Ms C’s home, we considered that this could have been implemented sooner as the council would have been aware that the various trades would need access to the property at different times. We also identified that the council had tried to obtain feedback from Ms C after the work had been completed, but that it was not compulsory for the council to 'sign off' individual pieces of work, so we did not uphold that complaint.

Whilst Ms C gained access to her home in order to begin cleaning it prior to the work being finished, we did not find evidence to support that she was advised no cleaning would be carried out. On the contrary, there were records to show that cleaning was to be done after the work had been completed. However, we upheld her complaint that the property was not left in the state that she understood it would be. Finally, we upheld Ms C's concerns about the handling of her complaint, as we identified that the council had not compensated her for a missed appointment nor had they repainted her bedroom as stated in their complaint responses to her.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the problems with accessing her property;
• fulfill its agreement and ensure Ms C's bedroom is repainted; and
• that the council provide the Ombudsman with a copy of their apology letter and evidence to confirm that Ms C has been reimbursed for the missed appointments in August and September 2011.
• 

Summary

Mr C runs a business situated on a road that the council intended to close temporarily for a week to allow for resurfacing. The normal practice was that the council prepared a letter for a representative of the contractor to hand-deliver to businesses at least a week before work started and, at the same time, to discuss specific access requirements. Mr C complained that the council did not reasonably undertake their responsibilities under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 about access and egress (entry and exit) to the works area; did not follow their own health and safety procedures in relation to the road works; and did not investigate his complaints about these matters within a reasonable time scale.

Our investigation confirmed that the council’s contractor had not notified and discussed specific access and egress requirements with Mr C (and a number of other businesses) until four calendar days before the work started. Mr C also had photographic evidence showing that health and safety procedures were on at least one occasion not followed when a vehicle reversed without a banksman (reversing assistant) in attendance. We, therefore, upheld the first two elements of Mr C’s complaint. We did not uphold the complaint about complaints handling, as although the complaint took slightly longer to deal with than indicated by the council’s published timelines, we found there had been mitigating circumstances.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• copy this decision notice to the contractor and remind them of their responsibilities under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and related health and safety measures.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C live in a ground floor four-in-a-block flat and are the sole council tenants in the block. The flat directly upstairs has a private tenant. Mr and Mrs C complained about unreasonable delay by the council in repairing the roof and rhones, which they felt resulted in dampness in their flat; the council’s failure to deal with problems of antisocial behaviour from the upstairs tenant, and the council’s failure to take action in relation to five incidents of flooding from the upstairs property.

We upheld one of the three complaints, as our investigation found that there was an unreasonable delay of eleven months between the council obtaining a quote for the roof and rhone repairs and the repairs being done. This was initially because they sent a copy of the quote to the occupant rather than the owner of the upstairs flat and did not follow up the lack of a reply. We made recommendations to address these failings. We did not uphold the complaint about antisocial behaviour because Mrs C had not provided the necessary information to take the matter forward and there was no corroboration from others. The council had no record of three of the five incidents of flooding, and had taken action on one some three years earlier. The fifth incident had only occurred on the eve of Mr and Mrs C’s final stage complaint to the council.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• explain to Mr and Mrs C what the installation of a chemical damp proof course and kitchen upgrading would entail and, if that work would be unduly disruptive to Mrs C because of her medical condition, make appropriate arrangements for short term temporary accommodation; and
• investigate any request that Mr and Mrs C make about repairs to the fabric of their flat as a result of the internal flooding incident on a date in March and take the remedial action necessary.

Summary

Mr C's elderly mother is cared for in hospital. He told us that one day when he was visiting her, the nurse in charge spoke to him in an inappropriate way. He was unhappy because when he complained to the board about the incident, he said they did not investigate or handle his complaint properly. He said that the board did not ask a witness for information and that there was an unexplained delay in passing his complaint to the board's complaints team.

We upheld his complaint about the investigation. We found that the board did the correct thing by interviewing the nurse involved, and we were satisfied that they did so as soon as they could after the complaint reached the complaints team. We could reach no conclusion about whether all the correct witnesses were interviewed, as accounts of who was there were different. We were, however, concerned that two witness statements appeared to have been taken after the date on which the board responded to Mr C's complaint, and made recommendations to address this.

We did not uphold his concerns about the complaints handling. Our investigation found that Mr C initially asked for his complaint to be handled on the ward, but later decided that he did not want to meet the member of staff who was handling it. Although there were typing errors in the board's letters and we identified a minor issue about the time it took to provide a final reply to his complaint, we noted the board's policy that staff made aware of a complaint should handle the matter locally as far as possible. We, therefore, found that the reasons for the delay in passing the complaint from the ward to the complaints team were understandable. We also noted that, as Mr C and his family had repeatedly expressed concerns about his mother's care, the board had appropriately arranged for reviews of her nursing and medical care.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• remind staff to ensure that, in future, relevant witnesses to events are interviewed or asked to provide a statement as soon as possible after the event, and in any case, during the investigation of the complaint;
• provide specific guidance on obtaining witness information (in their advice to staff about operating the complaints policy); and
• review their practice for checking draft letters to be issued by the complaints team, with the aim of minimising the chance of typing errors. The board should let the Ombudsman know the steps that they put in place as a result.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment that his father (Mr A) received when the board referred him to a private hospital as an NHS patient for an operation. Mr C said that his father's discharge from the hospital was unreasonable, as he had not passed urine. He also complained that his father was discharged in severe pain with pain relieving drugs co-codamol and paracetamol, despite the fact that he had told the hospital he could not take co-codamol as it contained codeine. A nurse had recorded in Mr A's notes that he had passed urine before being discharged. In response to the complaint, the nurse said that although she could not remember Mr A, she had noted this in the records, and he would not have been allowed to leave the hospital had he not done so. We found that there was no evidence to support Mr C's complaint that the record had been falsified. However, we found that Mr A was prescribed co-codamol in error, as the hospital had previously recorded that he was not to be given codeine. We upheld this complaint and made recommendations to address this. Mr C also complained that the hospital's response was unreasonable when his mother contacted them about his father's pain after his discharge. We found no evidence to support this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• issue a written apology to Mr A for administering co-codamol in error; and
• review this matter in order to identify how they can prevent such errors.