Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained about the way in which the university handled her academic appeal. The officer handling her appeal chose to process it as a complaint. We found that the officer had not followed the procedure appropriately. We found that written records of communications between the officer and Ms C and other academic members of staff had not been kept. We found this unreasonable, as it made it difficult to impartially assess what Ms C had been told. We also found that the officer had used a complaints process that did not comply with the university’s own complaints procedure, and we were critical of this. We made a number of recommendations to address the fact that procedures were not appropriately followed in Ms C’s case.

We did not uphold Ms C's other complaints, including that she had not been told she could consult with an independent student advice service, as we found that she could reasonably have obtained a copy of the university’s complaints process herself. We also did not uphold her complaint that she was graduated in her absence without her consent, as the university provided evidence that Ms C had been sent the date of her graduation ceremony in writing. We also accepted their position that should a student’s appeal change a degree award, they would be invited to another ceremony as long as they had not crossed the stage during a previous ceremony.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• reconsider Ms C's AP1 form through their academic appeals procedure;
• provide us with evidence that their student complaints procedure is being adhered to;
• provide us with evidence that written records of communications in relation to student complaints files are being maintained; and
• amend the student complaints procedure to highlight the supportive role that can be offered to students by the students’ association’s independent student advice service.

Summary

Ms C complained that the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) unreasonably refused her funding for a course, despite advising her course tutors that funding would be provided. She also complained about the delay in processing her application.

We found that SAAS did not provide information on their website or their 'Guide to Post Graduate Student Support' about restrictions on providing funding for students who had previously received support for courses from EU funding. However, they explained that these information sources were for guidance purposes only, and that only when an application was submitted could all criteria be considered. As this information was for guidance only, and as SAAS demonstrated that Ms C did not qualify for support, we did not uphold these aspects of her complaint. However, we did uphold her complaint that they failed to assess her application within their advertised timescales.

Recommendations

We recommended that SAAS:

• ensure that they comply with their advertised timescales when assessing applications and write to Ms C to apologise for failing to meet their timescales in this case.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Water supplied water to his home at inappropriately low pressure. He was aware that they had installed pumps at the end of his street but said that they had failed to switch them on. He was unhappy with Scottish Water's handling of his complaint as they had not turned the pumps on and had not explained why they were not in operation.

Scottish Water said that they were supplying Mr C with water at above the guaranteed pressure of one bar. As Mr C was dissatisfied with this explanation, they offered to carry out an analysis of the pumps, which they did. The analysis revealed that it would not be cost-effective to bring the pumps into operation. We did not uphold his complaint as we were satisfied that Scottish Water had given the matter appropriate consideration. However, we found that they had never explained to Mr C why the pumps could not be switched on and we recommended that they apologise to Mr C for failing to deal with this aspect of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to provide him with an explanation.

Summary

Mrs C owns a property that is leased to a council tenant by a letting agent.

Mrs C complained that there was an unreasonable delay by the council to act on her agents' request to make a direct payment of local housing allowance to them, not her tenant, because the tenant had rent arrears. Mrs C complained about the council's communication with her agents. She also complained about a failure to respond to her request to send the case to appeal, and to handle her complaint in accordance with the council's complaints procedure.

We upheld most of Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council had delayed in taking action to pay Mrs C's letting agents direct, combined with a failure to respond to her letting agents' enquiries when the payment was not made. When they responded to Mrs C's complaint, the council had already accepted that there was a failure to respond to the letting agents' correspondence and to provide advice about the appeal procedure in the decision notice. There was also evidence that the council did not meet their customer care standards in the handling of Mrs C's formal complaint. We did not, however, find that anything had gone wrong in respect of Mrs C's request for an appeal, as although she was told about her right of appeal, no request was received from her or anyone acting on her behalf.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a payment to Mrs C; and
• take steps to ensure that their procedures, and notices issued to landlords about appeal procedures, comply with the housing benefit regulations and Department of Works and Pensions' good practice guidance.

Summary

Mr C obtained a building warrant for a new double garage and bed and breakfast accommodation. Around 18 months later he found that the building warrant was based on the council's approval of plans for an earlier, incorrect foundation slab.

When trying to resolve matters, Mr C experienced delays. He complained that the council made further administrative errors and provided conflicting information as he tried to proceed with his development.

The council accepted and apologised that they stamped the wrong plans for the development. This error resulted in a building warrant being based on drawings that were different to the work that would be carried out. To resolve this, the council suggested that Mr C resubmit the correct plans as part of a forthcoming amendment of warrant application. We found that this was a simple administrative error, but felt that the council's proposed solution contributed to Mr C's problems with progressing the work. Had the stamping mistake been dealt with separately from the amendment application, he would have been able to progress with construction.

We found no evidence to confirm Mr C's assertion that the council lost plans for his building warrant application. However, we found that they made administrative mistakes on two occasions when providing stamped copies of plans for the building warrant's approval.

Mr C also complained that the council were responsible for unacceptable delays when dealing with his application for amendments to his plans. We did not find this to be the case. We were satisfied that delays were caused by the time taken to verify the appropriateness of an infiltration system Mr C had installed. We found that they had correctly followed their procedures in doing so.

Mr C sought to amend his plans so that a link door between his existing property and the new bed and breakfast accommodation was sealed. He complained that the council provided conflicting information to him and his architect about the feasibility of sealing the link door. We were unable to establish what information had been provided verbally, but were satisfied that the written advice the council gave to Mr C's architect was reasonable and in line with national guidance.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• refund all fees associated with amendments and extensions to Mr C's building warrant.

Summary

Ms C was liable for council tax. When she received a bill, she emailed the council for assistance because she was having difficulty paying. The council did not respond to her email. They later took recovery action for her council tax arrears, which resulted in a charge being added to her account. Ms C complained that the charge was added to the account even though she was making regular payments. She also complained that her emails were not answered and about the quality of the complaint response letter she received from the council which she said contained spelling and grammatical errors.

We did not uphold the complaint about the charge because we found that Ms C's council tax account was in arrears and she did not make reasonable attempts to contact the council to make a payment arrangement. Although we noted that she had emailed them, we did not think that sending one email during a four month period (while aware that they had not yet replied) amounted to a reasonable attempt to contact the council. However, we upheld her complaints that the council did not respond to emails and about the quality of their complaint response.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their processes for responding to email contacts to ensure that, where appropriate, emails are acknowledged and dealt with within the published timescales; and
• reflect on the quality of written communications, as demonstrated by this complaint, and take appropriate steps to ensure that they are of a satisfactory standard.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not ask for his permission before authorising the building of an access ramp for a neighbour, which affected Mr C's garden path. He also said that they had not responded to his complaint about the member of staff who authorised the work, and he was unhappy with the council's complaints handling. He said that there was delay in resolving a problem with a leaking pipe, which he believed was associated with the work.

Mr C also complained that the council unreasonably told him to resolve this with the contractor, rather than with them, and did not honour their commitment to restore his path to its original condition after the ramp was removed. Finally, he said that he had been denied a right of review under the social work complaints procedure.

Our investigation found that the council had already investigated and apologised to Mr C for failing to obtain his permission before the work began. They had acted on his complaint about a member of staff, but did not record or follow up on it, so we upheld that complaint.

We did not uphold the complaints about the problem with the leaking pipe, and that the council unreasonably instructed Mr C to resolve the matter with the contractor. The evidence showed that the council had not delayed in responding to Mr C's complaint nor had anything gone wrong in their handling of the matter. We also did not uphold the complaint that the council failed to restore Mr C's path after the ramp was removed. We found that they had restored his path and any dispute about liabilities that he claimed arose from that work was not a matter within our remit.

However, we upheld Mr C's complaints about the delay in responding to his complaint, and about being denied a right of review. Whether Mr C should have been allowed to appeal through the statutory complaints procedure is a matter of interpretation of the law and we could not comment on this. However, we did find fault in the council's handling of the complaint. We also found that, having decided that Mr C did not have a right of review through the social work complaints procedure, they had failed to tell him that his complaint could in fact be considered under the council's complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for their oversight and for the shortcomings in the handling of his complaint;
• take steps to ensure that the errors in dealing with the complaint are addressed and make any necessary improvements to the social work resources complaints procedure; and
• ensure that staff handling complaints in social work resources have guidance which makes clear the criteria for both the social work and the council's complaints procedures.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the handling of both his planning application and his representations. In particular, he complained about the time taken to process his application.

Our investigation found that while Mr C's application was not determined within two months that was not, in itself, maladministration. The law provides for such delays and gives applicants an avenue of appeal. However, we found that there had been a breakdown in communication within the council which had added to the delay in dealing with the application, which we considered unreasonable.

We also found that the council did not handle Mr C's complaint in line with their complaints process. However, there was no evidence that they had failed to provide a reasonable response to the issues raised by Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the delays identified in the complaint.

Summary

Following a complaint from a member of staff, the housing co-operative served a notice of proceedings against tenants Mr and Mrs C. This notice was cancelled when Mr and Mrs C appealed, as the appeal panel said the notice was too harsh.

Mr and Mrs C then complained that the co-operative had not followed their procedures when deciding to issue the notice, that there was no apology for their actions; and they did not give proper notice when they wrote to Mr and Mrs C requesting them to attend the meeting to discuss the matter.

We found that the co-operative did not follow its own procedures and did not apologise, so we upheld these complaints. We also found that the procedures and guidance provided, in relation to how policies should be implemented, were unclear. We did not uphold the complaint about not receiving proper notice of the meeting as we found that enough information was supplied to make Mr and Mrs C aware of the circumstances.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings identified; and
• consider conducting a review of the procedures in place that support the implementation of their antisocial behaviour and harassment policy and dignity at work policy, to ensure clarity and consistency in their application.

Summary
Mr C complained on behalf of his wife (Mrs C) about delay in getting a hospital appointment, treatment at the pain clinic, and poor complaints handling. Mrs C had had pain in her back and leg for ten months and pain in her neck and arm for eight months, and Mr C thought she should have been seen at the hospital more urgently. Her GP referred her to the neurosurgery department in July 2011, and followed this up with a further referral two months later, including a request that she should have a scan on her neck before attending her scheduled appointment. No scan was taken, however, even though Mr C also wrote to the board. Mrs C was seen in neurosurgery as scheduled in November and was referred to the pain clinic, where she was eventually seen in December. Mr C complained that although the GP made an urgent request for Mrs C to be seen at the pain clinic, because the referral from the department of neurosurgery was classed as routine she was not prioritised.

We did not uphold the complaints about delay and treatment. Our investigation, which included taking advice from our medical adviser, found that it was reasonable for the GP to refer Mrs C on a routine basis as she had no 'red flag' symptoms that would have triggered an urgent referral. Mrs C was seen by a specialist within 17 weeks. This was just within the national target of 18 weeks and there was no evidence of avoidable delay. The reclassification of the referral to the pain clinic was also reasonable. Our adviser said that although Mrs C had been in pain for some time, she was not displaying the sort of symptoms that would have needed an urgent referral. It is also the responsibility of hospital specialists to fully assess and categorise referrals. In Mrs C's case, this was done appropriately by the on-call pain consultant.

We found, however, that there were unreasonable delays in providing a response to Mr C's complaint. The board did not respond for two months and provided no acknowledgement, explanation or apology for this. We found that the delay was partly due to the board calculating response times wrongly - not from the original date Mr C complained, but from the date of a later email that he had sent. We upheld the complaint and made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations
We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mr C for the complaints handling failings we identified.