Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C's complaint concerned a sewage pumping station which shared a boundary with his property. Mr C said the operation of the pumping station was causing an unacceptable level of noise and vibration, which was causing disruption. He was regularly unable to sleep and at times unable to watch television or remain in his property. Mr C said Scottish Water had carried out works to reduce the noise and vibration, but that they had only done so when the local authority had served a noise abatement order. Additionally, Mr C believed Scottish Water had delayed in complying with the order, to avoid incurring additional costs. Mr C said Scottish Water had not responded appropriately to his complaints and they had not provided a permanent solution to the problems.

Scottish Water did not accept they had not responded reasonably to Mr C's complaint. They said they had been proactive when it was clear he was dissatisfied and they had noted a peak in the number of complaints. They had replaced the pumps on site, which had been at the end of their operational life, and sourced replacements which had improved performance. Scottish Water said they were monitoring noise and vibration on site, but that Mr C had placed unreasonable conditions on allowing access to his property to monitor the noise levels internally. Scottish Water said they had spent significant sums of money addressing the problems on site.

We found Scottish Water had taken an unreasonable length of time to acknowledge Mr C's complaint. Additionally, the local authority had indicated they were concerned about the longstanding nature of the noise problems Mr C was experiencing. We noted Scottish Water informed Mr C they had resolved the problems on site and that the matter was closed, before they were served with a noise abatement order by the local council. We found Scottish Water had not responded sufficiently quickly to Mr C and that their response to us had sought to minimise the concerns of the local authority. We found that Scottish Water needed to review their existing offer of compensation to Mr C to reflect this extended timescale.

We also found that the only available noise monitoring evidence showed that the pumps continued to produce a level of noise that breached the relevant national standards. A definitive determination of nuisance could not be made, however, until Mr C allowed monitoring to take place in his property. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• provide training to the relevant staff to ensure they are able to consistently and accurately identify complaints for escalation;
• review their offer of compensation to Mr C to ensure it covers the relevant period;
• ensure internal monitoring is carried out by an independent expert to an agreed standard at the earliest opportunity;
• ask the council to carry out the monitoring if agreement cannot be reached between Mr C and Scottish Water;
• implement in full any works recommended following the internal monitoring to further attenuate noise;
• monitor the noise levels from the pumping station for a further six months; and
• apologise for the failings identified in this investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained about how the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) responded to his complaint.

Mr C had submitted a complaint using a PCF2 form (a form for complaints about confidential matters). SPS guidance states that on receiving a PCF2 form a response should be given within seven days, stating whether the complaint is considered to be about a confidential matter and, where it is not considered as such, providing the reasons for the decision on that matter.

We found that although the prison responded to Mr C's complaint within seven days, they failed to provide reasons for the decision that the complaint had not met the requirements of a complaint about confidential matters. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• reconsider Mr C's complaint following the failings identified and respond to him in writing; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C complained that there was a delay in the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) submitting his first grant of temporary release application (FGTR) to Scottish Ministers to approve his temporary release from prison.

The SPS accepted that there had been a considerable delay by prison staff in submitting the FGTR, including exceeding a 14-day set period. Once submitted, it was rejected due to the set timescale having been significantly exceeded and there was an issue with the quality of information supplied. This meant that Mr C was required to have a further risk assessment, which identified some recent issues that had to be examined further.

We acknowledged that SPS have a duty of care to Mr C, the community and the parole board, where the quality of an FGTR must take precedence over timescales. However, due to an unreasonable delay by prison staff in submitting the FGTR and a lack of communication with Mr C in this respect, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise for the failings identified;
• ensure the prison reviews the process for the submission of FGTR applications to ensure it is adequate and that timescales set out under the guidance can be reasonably met; and
• ensure there are measures in place for prisoners to be updated on the status of their FGTR application when delays over the 14-day period occur.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to address within a reasonable timescale her concerns about anti-social behaviour. Mrs C also felt that the council had not responded adequately to her complaints.

The council stated that they felt they had responded reasonably and in line with their procedures both in terms of the anti-social behaviour complaints and in terms of their complaints handling.

Our view was that the council had been at fault in not appropriately acting upon Mrs C's initial anti-social behaviour complaint. We also found that the council had not recognised an email from Mrs C as a complaint or dealt with it in accordance with their procedures. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for their failure to appropriately log her anti-social behaviour complaint and for their delay in commencing an investigation of her concerns; and
• apologise to Mrs C for their failure to deal with her correspondence as a complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to properly handle numerous complaints about noise from her downstairs neighbour that she had been experiencing for two years.

We found that the council's initial response to Miss C's noise complaints was appropriate and in line with their Antisocial Behaviour Policy.

However, aside from a period of time when the council were trying to work with the neighbour to reach a long-term resolution, we were concerned that the council had allowed the behaviour to continue for so long without further action being considered or taken under the Antisocial Behaviour Policy. We also had concerns that an internal review had concluded that the behaviour had improved, even though Miss C continued to report noise complaints. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C for the failings identified in this investigation; and
• review Miss C's noise complaints in line with the Antisocial Behaviour Policy and fully consider all options available to properly address her complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow their Unacceptable Actions Policy when restricting his communication with them.

Over a number of years, Mr C was involved with a website forum which focused on local politics. Material was posted on the forum which in the view of the council was offensive. The council wrote to Mr C advising that they were taking action under their policy and that they would no longer respond to communication from Mr C, whether written or verbal.

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's actions, including that they should have issued a warning and that the council's restrictions had no connection with the allegations made against him.

Having reviewed the council's Unacceptable Actions Policy, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that the council should have issued a formal warning to Mr C in relation to the conduct they were concerned about. We also found that the council should have provided Mr C with a more robust explanation of why they considered the restrictions on communication to have been necessary.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the procedural failings this investigation has identified; and
• feed back the findings of this investigation to the relevant staff.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his former wife (Mrs B) and his son (Mr B) about a letter Mr B's head teacher sent to Mrs B, in relation to alleged disciplinary issues in the school. Mr C also complained about the council's investigation of and response to Mrs B's complaint.

We found that the head teacher's letter included very emotive language, rather than factual information about specific incidents. Such factual information could have helped to engage Mrs B with the school's concerns in light of the facts.

We also identified a number of failings with the council's investigation and response to Mrs B, and noted that the council failed to send us all relevant information in response to our enquiry. The council's investigating officer made a recommendation following their investigation but the council was not able to provide information on the investigating officer's meetings or findings, therefore we concluded that notes were either not taken or not retained. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C, Mrs B and Mr B for the inappropriate language included in the head teacher's letter;
• send a copy to this office of the policy they developed in response to the investigating officer's recommendation;
• ensure that investigating officers make and keep records of interviews and advice received as part of the complaint file; and
• remind investigating officers of the need to comply with the complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr and Mr C said the council had not taken the risk of flooding into account in dealing with a retrospective planning application. The application had been submitted by a neighbour for change of land use on the site of a business.

Mrs and Mrs C said the site had been steadily developed over a number of years without consent. They said that changes had been made to the land which increased the risk of flooding.

We found the council had reasonably explained their decision. Their view was that there was no change in development terms that they considered would affect or increase the risk of flooding.

We took into account that Mr and Mrs C could have raised objections to the application but did not do so. However, whilst planning officers reached their view based on a number of valid considerations, including advice previously given in respect of flooding, their report of handling (a document which explored the merits of the development in accordance with various planning policies) did not contain the kind of detail we would have expected.

We found the council had not responded reasonably to Mr and Mrs C's complaint about buildings erected without consent. Although the council had carried out a site visit, they omitted to tell Mr and Mrs C what they found, and that they considered the buildings permitted the development. We upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for failing to fully address Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

The back door to Mrs C's property had not been properly fitted. Mrs C complained that although the housing association had accepted the door they had fitted was inadequate, the problem had still not been resolved at the point Mrs C left the property, some two years after the problem had first been reported.

The association closed the complaint before the work was completed, which meant they were unaware that the work had not been properly carried out. The association had not taken into account adequately the inconvenience to Mrs C of having to pursue the matter for such a long time. Although compensation had been offered, the offer did not appear to comply with the association's compensation policy.

We found Mrs C had been treated unreasonably and that the association should have ensured the complaint was dealt with appropriately and provided an offer of compensation which took into account their own internal guidance.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• review the issue of compensation for stress and inconvenience and provide this office with evidence of the action taken; and
• provide a formal written apology from an appropriate member of their senior management team.

Summary

Mrs C complained about several aspects of the nursing care that had been provided to her mother (Mrs A) at Western Isles Hospital and about the nursing staff's communication with the family.

We took independent nursing advice. We found that while some aspects of nursing care were reasonable, the board had already carried out their own review which had identified a number of failings with care and communication and apologised for these. We found that there had been poor practice in relation to the use of a hoist when lifting Mrs A. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• provide a further apology, for the inappropriate use of the hoist by staff on the ward; and
• provide Mrs C with a copy of the completed case review showing the action taken to address the concerns raised.