Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a transport company (the company) that Business Stream had unreasonably failed to fully refund overpayments going back to 2002. Mr C said that a hybrid meter should have been installed to differentiate between the water flow required for fire fighting and the water required for normal usage. Instead, a single meter had been put in in 2003, which was much larger than the company required. It was, however, smaller than the meter it replaced, which resulted in a reduction in the company's water bills. The company had, therefore, been unaware that the wrong type of meter had been installed until 2013. Mr C was able to provide correspondence sent to the company at the time of installation, in which they were told explicitly a hybrid meter had been installed.

Business Stream stated they believed the Prescription and Limitation Act (1973) (the Act) applied, and they were, therefore, justified in restricting any refund to the company to a five-year period.

We found that it would not be appropriate for us to comment on the interpretation of the Act by Business Stream as ultimately this would be a matter for the courts. We considered, however, that Business Stream had failed to demonstrate that their redress and compensation policy had been appropriately or proportionately applied to this case. Business Stream told us that they did not believe further payment was merited, but they did not provide any explanation for this decision. Nor did they explain why this consideration was only made after Mr C's complaint had been submitted to us, rather than as part of their complaint investigation. We considered that this was unreasonable and upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• refund the cost of the original meter installation in 2003;
• provide evidence that they have reviewed the case, applying their redress and compensation policy to reflect the circumstances of the case, including both the original failings and subsequent overcharging in a manner which is proportionate to the loss suffered by the company; and
• provide evidence that they have reviewed their complaints process to ensure that due regard is given to the redress and compensation policy and that decisions relating to it are documented contemporaneously as part of the investigation.

Summary

In March 2013, Mr C requested that Business Stream, his licensed water provider, provide him with a resized meter to improve his water supply. Business Stream then contacted Scottish Water, who own and operate the water infrastructure, and they advised that Mr C would first require to provide a water impact assessment. This was completed in November 2013 and Scottish Water were contacted to progress the meter upgrade. To date the necessary work has not been undertaken. Mr C complained to us about the delay.

We found that there was much contact between Business Stream and Scottish Water but that there was evidence of long periods of delay when Scottish Water were inactive. However, quotes have now been provided to Mr C and both Business Stream and Scottish Water have acknowledged their poor service and each have agreed to make an ex gratia payment in recognition of this. We also found that after Mr C made formal complaints to Business Stream in February 2014 and October 2015, both complaints were closed despite the meter upsize not having taken place. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• make a formal apology for closing the complaints made to them prematurely.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of Miss A about the time it took for the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) to carry out a fitness to practise investigation after allegations were raised about Miss A's conduct. The investigation took 15 months. Ms C also complained that the SSSC did not keep Miss A informed of the progress of their investigation.

In responding to the complaint, the SSSC indicated to both Miss A and Ms C that there had been problems with obtaining statements from witnesses. The SSSC also acknowledged that Miss A had not always been kept informed of the progress of her case.

The SSSC told us that significant matters had affected their investigation of the case. These matters included the performance of individuals who had dealt with Miss A's case and the capacity of the department at the time.

While we identified that Miss A had delayed initially in responding to the SSSC's request for comments on the allegations, over a period of seven months little investigation work was carried out. We considered that a more structured approach to exploring the evidence, along with arranging interviews and statements, should have taken place sooner.

We found that the level of activity on the case appeared disproportionate to the 15 months it took to reach a decision. We were also critical of a lack of communication with Miss C about the progress of the investigation. We therefore upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SSSC:

• issue Miss A with a written apology for the failings identified;
• demonstrate to us that clear mechanisms are in place to ensure any protracted period of inactivity on a particular case is identified and addressed; and
• demonstrate to us that effective mechanisms are in place to ensure case workers routinely inform registrants about the progress of their case.

Summary

Miss C complained to us about the length of time it took for the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) to carry out an investigation following her informing them of an offence with which she had been charged. She also complained about the lack of information provided to her by the SSSC on the progress of their investigation.

After Miss C contacted the SSSC to query the delay, they apologised to her and said that their investigation could have been concluded around a month earlier had they pursued information needed from her employer and from the court service sooner. In the course of our investigation, the SSSC told us that matters such as increased case numbers and challenges with staffing had contributed to their handling of the case.

We considered that there was a substantial delay of four months during which there was very little action on the case. Although the SSSC have procedures in place for monitoring and supervising investigation work on a monthly basis, we did not see any evidence of a timely discussion of the case. We also found that over a period of five months, Miss C only received information about her case when she contacted the SSSC. The SSSC were unable to provide an explanation for this. SSSC procedures state that staff need to keep registrants informed of progress and also to plan communication when periods of inactivity are likely. We concluded that there was a failure to keep Miss C reasonably informed during the investigation process. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaints and made three recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that SSSC:

• demonstrate to us that clear mechanisms are in place to ensure that any protracted period of inactivity on a particular case (such as non-responses to information requests) is identified and addressed;
• demonstrate to us that effective mechanisms are in place to ensure that case workers routinely inform registrants about the progress of their case in accordance with the fitness to practise casework procedures; and
• issue a written apology to Miss C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had unreasonably, and without proper explanation, removed an '08' number from the list of numbers he could call. The 08 number in question redirected to his home number and allowed him to make daily contact with his child at a discounted rate. He had had this number on his list for over a year, however this number was removed from his list without consultation or prior warning.

We found that the Scottish Prison Rules (Telephones) Direction 2011 stated that prisoners are prohibited from using a prisoner telephone to make a phone call, without the prior approval of the governor, to a phone number beginning with 08. The prison explained that numbers like this, which divert to numbers unknown, could present a threat to security and organised crime as well as potentially causing operational difficulties by allowing unlimited time on the prisoner phone. We were satisfied that this explanation was reasonable and that the prison was acting in accordance with the rules in removing the 08 number from Mr C's list of numbers. The prison acknowledged that the 08 number was added to Mr C's list of numbers in error and without the prior approval of the governor, as required by the rules, and that Mr C should have been properly informed when the 08 number was removed. We upheld Mr C's complaint. The prison have now taken action to try to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future by reminding staff of the correct process.

We also had concerns about the way in which Mr C's complaint was handled. Our view was that, had the complaint been properly investigated and a detailed response given to Mr C, this may have prevented escalation of the complaint. Also, an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) response to Mr C had indicated that prison staff should meet with him to discuss alternative options for family contact; however, this had not taken place.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by this investigation;
• comply with the ICC response and ensure that prison staff meet with Mr C to discuss alternative options for family contact; and
• undertake a root cause analysis of the way Mr C's complaint was handled to identify why errors were made and to learn from this.

Summary

Mr C and his then partner (Ms D) attended a multi-agency meeting at a school in the council's area regarding their foster son. Mr C was unhappy about the way he was spoken to at the meeting by one of the school's staff. Mr C complained to us that the council failed to reasonably investigate his complaint about the way in which he was spoken to at the meeting in line with their complaints procedure.

Mr C's concerns included that the council's investigating officer should have interviewed all four of the meeting attendees to ascertain the truth and that the council's complaints procedure available to him online was out of date. He also said that the council failed to signpost him to us and had to be pressed to confirm that their complaints procedure had been completed.

We considered that it was for the council's investigating officer to determine what evidence she needed in order to make a decision on Mr C's complaint. There was no requirement in the council's complaints procedure for her to have interviewed all persons present at the meeting. However, it would have been helpful if the council had explained to Mr C why they considered that the social worker at the meeting could be a corroborating witness for the member of the school's staff, but that Ms D could not be considered a corroborating witness for his version of events.

The council acknowledged that the complaints procedure available online at that time was out of date. The evidence showed that the investigating officer failed to inform Mr C that her response was the final stage of the council's complaints procedure and the response did not refer him to us. This resulted in several months of unnecessary communications between Mr C and the council on his complaint. We were also concerned that the council failed to make and retain notes of key events in the handling of Mr C's complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back our decision on Mr C's complaint to the staff involved;
• take steps to ensure that, in future, records of key events during the investigation of complaints are made and retained; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Miss C complained about the council's communication with her over a series of suspensions to her housing benefit.

We found that the council had communicated clearly with Miss C about the reasons for the suspensions and that she had been told what further information was required.

Although during our investigation we found that Miss C expected the council to reply to her emails unreasonably quickly, we did find administrative failings on the council's part, including sending an important email to the wrong address, not finding an attachment to one of Miss C's emails, and advising Miss C that a notice had been sent when it had not. They also failed to reply to two separate emails sent by Miss C. We therefore upheld the complaint and made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the handling of this case to establish the cause of administrative errors, and identify what steps might be taken to avoid recurrence. The council should then share learning from the review with relevant staff members.

Summary

Mrs C and her husband decided to defer their child, who has a February birthday, starting Primary One. They wanted their child to spend a further year at nursery. Mrs C said that in terms of the Scottish Government statutory guidance, The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, children born in January or February have the right to have the deferred year funded by a local authority.

Mrs C and her husband secured a place for their child at a partnership nursery school within the council area and applied for funding. The council initially refused the application because in terms of their early years admissions policy deferred funding was only provided for the nursery the child had attended in their pre-school year. In the case of this child, the nursery was in another local authority where the family resided. The council then wrote to Mrs C stating they would fund her child's place but shortly thereafter withdrew their funding offer. The council said the letter offering to fund the child's place had been sent as a result of human error and because their database had not been updated.

Mrs C complained to us about the council's handling of her application. In terms of the statutory guidance, we were satisfied that the council were entitled to set their own local admissions policy and at the time Mrs C made her application, her child did not meet the criteria for funding. Nevertheless, we accepted that the failings in the handling of Mrs C's application had left her in a difficult situation and had caused her concern and distress. For this reason, we upheld the complaint. We also made a recommendation to the council in relation to their computer system in respect of funding applications.

The council subsequently reviewed their admissions policy and agreed to fund the child's deferred year place.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide evidence of the process review and adjustments made to their computer system in respect of funding applications.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow their policies and procedures in dealing with his reports of anti-social behaviour about two of his neighbours, who were council tenants. Mr C said that his health had suffered considerably due to the actions of his neighbours and the council's failure to deal with the matter appropriately.

During our investigation, we looked at whether, in their handling of Mr C's complaints about his neighbours, the council had followed their anti-social behaviour procedure (ASB procedure) and the provisions set out in their Scottish Secure Tenancy Agreement (SSTA). We found that the council had dealt with most of Mr C's reports of anti-social behaviour by his neighbours in accordance with the provisions of the SSTA and their ASB procedure.

However, the records showed that having begun action under the SSTA against one of Mr C's neighbours, in relation to a pet being unsupervised in Mr C's garden and common areas, there was no evidence that the council ensured the required action was taken. This was despite Mr C continuing to report problems with his neighbours, providing them with further evidence and telling the council that they were failing to resolve his complaints.

We considered that the council's written responses to Mr C's letters were unreasonably brief and failed to fully explain the actions taken by them. The council's responses failed to advise Mr C that some of the matters raised by him were not for the council, or to whom the issues should be reported. This lack of detail was also apparent in the council's written responses to Mr C's formal letters of complaint to them about their handling of the situation. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back our decision on Mr C's complaint to the staff involved;
• take steps to ensure that any future complaints from Mr C are dealt with in line with their ASB procedure and SSTA, whilst taking full account of the previous formal action taken by the council;
• ensure that, in future, they provide complainants with full written responses to written reports and formal complaints about anti-social behaviour, with signposting where appropriate; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the care and treatment her late mother (Mrs A) had received in Ninewells Hospital before her death. In particular, she complained about the management of her mother's oxygen therapy immediately before her death. Mrs A had a number of health problems, including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (a lung condition that causes scarring of the lungs and where the cause is unclear). She was receiving oxygen therapy and a trial had indicated that she required a consistent high level of oxygen via a rebreathing mask (a mask that provides a high concentration and flow of oxygen and is used to provide patients with very specific oxygen needs).

However, a nurse had put in place a nasal cannula (two prongs that sit at the bottom of the nose and are more comfortable to wear, but which deliver a lower concentration of oxygen than a rebreathing mask), to allow Mrs A to eat her lunch and drink. A nurse had then observed Mrs A to be alert after lunch, but ten minutes later, Mrs A was found to be dead. She did not have the mask on at that time.

We took independent advice on Mrs C's complaint from a consultant in respiratory medicine. We found that, in general, the clinical treatment provided to Mrs A had been reasonable. However, the fact that her oxygen saturation had dropped to low levels when her oxygen had been disconnected several days earlier should have alerted medical staff to the fact that she needed oxygen via a rebreathing mask and not a nasal cannula. We found that her oxygen saturation levels should have been monitored during and after her lunch if the rebreathing mask was to be removed, although there was no clear evidence that Mrs A's death resulted from this. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. We also upheld her complaint that the board did not respond reasonably to her enquiries and complaints in view of their delays in responding to her.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• provide evidence that consideration has been given to establish how to prevent a repetition of this incident in the future;
• issue a written apology to Mrs C for the failings identified; and
• make complaints handling staff aware of our decision.