Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Miss C, a student with additional support needs, complained about the processing of her application and the provision for her additional support needs. The college took over four months to give the correct information to a relevant third party, which delayed Miss C receiving relevant support. The access centre which assessed Miss C, while acting promptly to carry out the assessment, failed to communicate effectively after being informed Miss C had a change of address.

Due to the delays in processing Miss C's application, she was without access to some of the support she needed for longer than necessary. We found that the college failed to reasonably to provide the support Miss C needed and made a recommendation relating to this. The college have acknowledged the findings of this investigation in this regard and apologised to Miss C.

Communication from the college regarding what was required of Miss C in order to obtain additional support was poor. When Miss C complained about her experience regarding arranging and access to additional support, the college took longer than the target time to respond to the complaint. The time taken was deemed not to have been unreasonable given the complexity of the complaint. However, communication from the college to Miss C should have been better, and was largely reactive to contact from Miss C, rather than proactively seeking to update Miss C when the timeline had to be extended. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the college:

• refund the fees paid for the course.

Summary

Mr C submitted a complaint to the prison governor about his personal officer. Mr C said that the governor failed to respond appropriately to his complaint.

We reviewed what Mr C said to the governor in his complaint and we considered whether the governor's response addressed the matter. We took the view that the governor had only addressed one aspect of Mr C's complaint and that they failed to appropriately address other concerns raised. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to appropriately address his complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that the prison internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to follow the proper process in handling her complaint. In particular, she said the ICC chair failed to follow prison rule 123(7) when handling her complaint, and that the ICC also failed to arrange for an independent prison monitor (IPM) to be present at the hearing to assist her.

Prison rule 123 says that a prisoner may be assisted at the ICC hearing and can call witnesses to give evidence in support of a complaint. Rule 123(7) says the ICC chair may refuse to allow a prisoner to call a witness if, having discussed the matter with the prisoner, the chair is reasonably satisfied the evidence the witness is likely to give will be of no relevance or value in considering the complaint.

The SPS told us that in Ms C's case, in relation to her request to be assisted by an IPM, she had not followed the agreed process to secure their attendance. We felt that was reasonable. The SPS also told us the chair did not call Ms C's witness because they did not see what more could be added to the hearing by having the witness present. However, the ICC's written response did not reflect that. Instead, it said that Ms C's witness was not present because she had not discussed the issue with them nor had she secured their agreement to attend. We did not consider that this was in line with the prison rules and we upheld Ms C's complaint to us.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• share the findings of this investigation with relevant staff at the prison to ensure witness requests are appropriately considered in line with prison rule 123(7); and
• remind relevant staff that written responses issued by the ICC should accurately reflect the discussion held in relation to requests for assistance and witnesses.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that prison staff repeatedly ordered Mr A to return to mainstream accommodation despite being a protection prisoner, and then punished Mr A for refusing.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said that Mr A had to be removed from the protection hall as he had threatened other prisoners. They said he was not ordered to return to mainstream accommodation, rather he was offered a protection place within a mainstream hall as a short-term option while they arranged a transfer to another prison. However, there was no evidence to show that the offer of a protection place was explained to Mr A until about three months after he was removed from the protection hall. Instead, the charge sheets, orderly room records and internal complaints committee (ICC) records within this period repeatedly referred to Mr A being ordered to return to mainstream. We upheld Mr C's complaint about this. During our investigation we also found that prison staff did not appear to be familiar with the guidance on protection prisoners, specifically GMA 22A/12, and there was no record of the appropriate forms being completed for Mr A.

We also upheld Mr C's complaint about the way the SPS handled Mr A's complaint during two ICC hearings. We found Mr A was not given the chance to attend one of the ICC hearings, and we were critical that both ICC hearings gave inadequate reasons for their decisions. It was not clear from the records whether either ICC understood the basis for Mr A's concerns (that he was a protection prisoner being ordered back to mainstream) or the SPS's position (that the space allocated was in fact a protection space rather than mainstream) and both decisions appeared to be based on assurances or assumptions without detailing any supporting evidence.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• feed back the findings of this investigation to relevant staff;
• take steps to ensure GMA 22A/12 is being followed at the prison;
• apologise to Mr A for the failings our investigation found; and
• identify and address ICC training needs at the prison to ensure staff give clear reasons for their decisions, including the evidence on which the decision is based.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to reasonably administer three statutory notices (where the council arrange for work to be done and then recoup the cost from the property owners) that had been served on his and neighbouring properties. The evidence we received from the council in relation to the complaint was limited. There was no clear evidence in relation to the appointment of the contractor for the work. Although the estimated costs during the project rose to bring it within the remit of the council's major framework process, it continued on the minor framework. The council were unable to provide an explanation for this but assured us that Mr C was not financially disadvantaged.

In addition, there was no clear evidence that Mr C was given an estimate of the cost of the project before work commenced or that update letters were issued whilst the work was being completed. Whilst the council told us that they could not accept that they failed to reasonably administer the three statutory notices as they complied with the legislative requirements, we found that their handling of the matter had not been satisfactory. They had previously agreed to reduce the total bill for the statutory notices by over £17,000 for scaffolding hire, which was likely to have been incurred due to their poor management of the works. In their response to our enquiries, the council also acknowledged that owners were not kept informed of the anticipated increases in costs during the project. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failure to reasonably administer the statutory notices served on his property; and
• refund the customer care and communication portion of the administration fee to him.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the council's handling of an application made by a neighbour for consent to carry out works to trees on Ms C's property which were subject to a tree preservation order (TPO). In particular, Ms C complained that the council failed to carry out a proper assessment of the trees, failed to ensure the trees in question were identified in the permission given by the council and failed to ensure the application for consent met the requirements of the TPO.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. While we were satisfied that in considering the request for permission to carry out work to trees on Ms C's property that were overhanging the neighbouring property the council acted in line with legislation, we were concerned about the adequacy of record-keeping and the lack of a publicly available register of applications submitted.

We were also concerned that the council had failed to refer to the works approved in the decision to the application and that they had failed to ensure the applicant had provided a plan or map sufficient to identify the trees on which permission to work was being sought. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide this office with details of the action taken to introduce a formal register in line with planning regulations;
• apologise to Ms C for the lack of detail contained within their decision in this case; and
• advise this office in respect of the adviser's comments on the need for a plan/map sufficient to identify the trees on which permission is being sought to accompany an application for consent under TPOs.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable action to ensure his bins were collected. We contacted the council, who did not respond to our enquiries in full. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failure to ensure that he receives a reasonable bin collection service;
• produce a detailed strategy to ensure that Mr C's bins are sufficient in number, are collected regularly in line with the council's obligations and are monitored for a three-month period to ensure collection; and
• provide this office with a copy of the strategy mentioned above.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of a planning application for a development near his home.

We took independent planning advice on Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had failed to respond to an enquiry from him about the height of the building. We also found that the council had failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of the impact of the development on his property and that the planning report contained inaccurate information about overlooking of his property, which misled the planning committee. We upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained to us about the action the council had taken to mitigate the impact of the development on his property. The council had asked the developer to plant trees along the boundary of the properties to provide additional privacy and screening. We found that the steps taken by the council in relation to the matter had not been satisfactory. Whilst the council had accepted that the problem had arisen because of their failings, they had tried to resolve the matter through negotiation with the developer. We found that it was the council's responsibility to try to resolve the matter. We considered that they should be prepared to fund the cost of this and use any measures available to them as the planning authority, in the event that negotiation fell short of what was required. We upheld this complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to respond to his correspondence about the matter appropriately. We found that the council should have registered his correspondence as a complaint at an earlier stage and had failed to keep him updated. They also failed to respond to him within the timescales they had given and did not respond reasonably to some of the issues he had raised. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide this office with evidence that there are now processes and procedures in place, such as a guidance note on writing planning reports, to prevent the failings identified from recurring;
• take steps to ensure that there is effective screening between the two properties. This should include meeting the costs of the screening if necessary. In the event that the council is unable to secure this with the co-operation of other parties, they should consider the full use of the statutory interventions available;
• provide this office with evidence that steps have been taken to try to ensure that correspondence and complaints about planning issues are responded to appropriately and in line with the relevant guidance; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained that she was charged when she failed to respond to contact from the council regarding a gas safety visit.

The council said they had sent her two letters, the engineers had called on her twice and left postcards asking her to contact them and they had heard nothing from her. They then hand-delivered a letter telling Mrs C she would be charged for having not previously responded to them and would face a larger charge if she continued to fail to contact them as the council would force entry to her home to carry out the safety checks.

At this point, Mrs C contacted the council and said she had not received any of the previous communications. We found that the council's policy is to call the tenant after the first two attempted visits. There was no evidence to suggest this had been done. As the council could not demonstrate they had followed their procedure, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• cancel the outstanding bill; and
• review the procedure related to how contact is recorded.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application at a business park where he owns property. Mr C was concerned that the neighbour notification process had not been correctly followed as he had not received any information on the proposed development. He also complained that the council did not have sufficient information about the nature of the business that was to operate from the new development before approving the application, and that his subsequent reports of noise and pollution had not been acted on appropriately.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser and upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that while Mr C's property was not within the neighbour notification area, the council had already acknowledged that the process had not been correctly followed as the description of the development provided in the notification and local press advertisements was inaccurate. The council accepted that updating the description amounted to a substantial change which should have been re-notified and re-advertised. The advice that we received was that a change of this type should have necessitated a new planning application. The council explained that they had reviewed their planning processes and steps were in now in place to prevent a recurrence of errors like this in future.

In relation to the information available to the council in reaching a decision on the planning application, the advice we received was that not all material considerations had been taken into account. The adviser considered there was no evidence that pollution and contamination had been considered. The adviser explained that any decision on whether the planning consent was valid would be a matter for the courts if a legal challenge was made.

We noted that Mr C had continued to report difficulties in respect of pollution. We found that following initial reports, there had been a failure to promptly advise Mr C of the outcome of environmental investigations and that planning action on this issue had been somewhat delayed. We made a number of recommendations to address the issues highlighted by this investigation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide evidence of all the steps taken, including training, to prevent such errors recurring in future;
• apologise for the failings identified in this investigation;
• make the relevant staff aware of the adviser's comments and guidance on material considerations;
• establish whether noise and pollution continues to be a concern for Mr C; and
• consider further environmental health investigation on the basis of the current position.