Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C's typewriter stopped working, so he asked his prison for a form to order a replacement. Mr C did not receive a response to his request, and when he complained (known as a PCF1 complaint) about this he was not happy with the responses to the complaints and brought his complaint to us.

We looked at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s file on Mr C's complaints, and correspondence about the typewriter request. We also took account of The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 (the prison rules) and the SPS' complaints guidance. A prison governor has discretion under the prison rules to decide whether a prisoner can have specific property, and it is not for us to challenge this. However, we can look at how a specific case has been handled, in terms of the administrative processing and communication with a prisoner.

We found the prison's handling of Mr C's request was unreasonable, as they set aside the fact that Mr C had had a typewriter for over ten years. The prison had to make a defensible decision on Mr C's request (where the prison have to be able to defend their decision should another prisoner make a similar request at another time), but they put the onus for this on him rather than on themselves. There was no record of the consideration of Mr C's request, which took the prison three months to deal with. The prison's letters to Mr C included too much official-sounding jargon. Communication with Mr C in plain language would have been more helpful in the circumstances. We concluded that the prison needed a simple process to deal with non-standard requests. We also found that the prison's responses to Mr C's complaints did not consistently let him know what was being done and when; and when this was not possible, the prison did not provide a full explanation. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• remind relevant prison staff of the SPS complaints guidance on PCF1s;
• remind relevant prison staff of the importance of writing letters in plain language; and
• consider introducing a simple process to deal with requests for items not on the generic articles in use list.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to pay him at the correct rate for his attendance at work and education sessions in prison. The amount a prisoner is paid for work in prison depends on the activity level their job falls into. Although this is a discretionary decision for the SPS to take, we found that the SPS had provided Mr C with conflicting information about the activity level of his job. We also found that they had given Mr C inaccurate information about the level of payment for attending education sessions. In view of these failings, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the inaccurate information they provided to him;
• ensure that relevant staff in the prison are aware of the correct rate of payment that prisoners are paid for attending education sessions; and
• review the payments made to Mr C in the prison to ensure that he received all the payments he was entitled to.

Summary

Mr C complained about the time taken to install a warning sign on the road near his home, about the council's communication with him, and their handling of his complaint.

We looked at the council's file on Mr C's complaints and concluded that, in the circumstances, they had taken an unreasonable time to install the sign (it had taken eight months from the date it was agreed that the sign should be installed). The council failed to respond to Mr C's requests for progress updates or took an unreasonable time to do so, and they did not give him a detailed explanation for the delay in installing the sign, which he specifically asked for. We also found that the council failed to follow the complaints procedure, and their responses to him did not always include clear apologies. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with evidence of action taken to prevent the incorrect prioritisation of road sign requests;
• provide us with evidence of improvements made in record-keeping and task handover management;
• refresh their understanding of the complaints procedure;
• reflect on the handling of stage 1 of Mr C's complaint, taking account of the complaints procedure; and
• familiarise themselves with our guidance on apology.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council after waiting over a year for repairs to the front door of his council tenancy. At the time he first approached us the repairs had still not been completed and the council had advised him that this was due to numerous issues regarding door suppliers, two of whom had ceased trading in the last year. The repairs took place during our investigation, 17 months after they were first reported.

In response to our enquiries, the council accepted that the suppliers going out of business did not justify the length of time Mr C had waited for the repairs. They stated that there had also been a number of errors of communication and monitoring on their part, contributing to the delays. As a result of this, they committed to implementing new systems to avoid similar mistakes in future.

On investigation, we found that, whilst some of the delays were outwith the council's control, the majority had been caused by poor administrative handling on their part. We also found that they had failed in some of their duties in relation to the Right to Repair scheme. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the additional failings identified by our investigation;
• offer Mr C the maximum compensation of £100 available under the Right to Repair scheme; and
• remind relevant staff of the council's responsibilities under the Right to Repair scheme.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to the council about the treatment their child received from the head teacher and another teacher at their school. Their child has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and has additional support needs. Mr and Mrs C were concerned that this was not being properly taken into account by the school. The council investigated but concluded there was no evidence to support Mr and Mrs C's concerns about unfair treatment or bullying by staff. Mr and Mrs C said the investigation was not impartial and complained about how it had been carried out. The council did not respond to this complaint.

During our consideration of these complaints, the council wrote to us and acknowledged a number of issues with their original investigation and response to Mr and Mrs C's complaints. They identified five recommendations that they were taking forward as a result of their review of the case. The council also advised that Mr and Mrs C's later complaint about how the council's investigation was carried out had not been responded to appropriately. We considered that the failings identified in the council's investigation amounted to maladministration and we upheld both of Mr and Mrs C's complaints. We made a number of our own recommendations to address the issues identified.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue Mr and Mrs C with a written apology for the failings identified during our investigation;
• provide us with an update on the outcome of the five recommendations identified by the council following their own review of the investigation;
• carry out checks at the school to ensure that appropriate support strategy records are being maintained for pupils with ADHD; and
• make staff aware of the importance of their tone and use of language in case notes and correspondence.

Summary

Mr C took over business premises and carried out alterations to sub-divide it into separate units which he hoped could be rated separately for non-domestic rates purposes. Mr C said that Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board did not communicate effectively with him about the valuations.

We found that although the valuation joint board had visited Mr C's business premises, there was no clear record of what had been discussed or agreed during that visit in terms of how the units would be treated from a valuation perspective, particularly concerning an interconnecting door between two of the units and a unit which had been further sub-divided into offices. Although the valuation joint board said they had explained to Mr C what was required before the units could be split we found a lack of evidence to support that position.

We found it had taken too long for the valuation joint board to separate one of the units, even after they had all the information they needed. They continued to contact Mr C by phone after he had asked twice for communication to be in writing or by email. We found it took too long for the valuation joint board to acknowledge an appeal and a complaint made by Mr C. We also found that an addressing error was not corrected in the timescale claimed by the valuation joint board.

Additionally we found the valuation joint board's response to Mr C's complaint failed to properly address a key issue that he had complained about, notably that their communication failed to address the points he had raised, which was unacceptable. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• carry out a review of record-keeping and communication, taking into account the issues identified with a view to making improvements and communicating changes to staff, and report back when the review is complete; and
• offer an apology for the communication failings identified.

Summary

When Mr and Mrs C decided to buy their housing association property they needed certificates from the council which showed their council tax payments were up to date. When they asked for the certificates the council said one could not be issued for Mrs C because she had council tax arrears. The council said the debt would need to be managed by their debt management partner.

We found that when Mr C first contacted the council they took around six weeks to deal with his enquiry, which was too long. The council provided inaccurate information to Mrs C by failing to include arrears from a previous address. The council also failed to pass the correct information to the debt management partner, which meant that Mrs C was only asked to pay a portion of the total amount outstanding. This caused a further delay. It was not until after Mr C complained that the council realised they had not notified Mr and Mrs C about arrears that Mrs C had at a previous address. All of this amounted to unreasonable confusion. The council explained that these things were the result of staff error.

We considered the council's handling of Mr and Mrs C's complaint. We found that the council had responded in time to the complaint. However the response failed to address Mr C's questions about how or why discrepancies had arisen in respect of the amounts owed, or what action had been taken as a result.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the multiple failings identified in the administration of the council tax debt and in the handling of the complaint; and
• provide a balanced account which sets out exactly what was owed in council tax, broken down by year, which accounts for all the amounts paid, any charges added, and any amounts written off.

Summary

Ms C complained that, following an agreement with the council that certain items would be removed from her late father's property following his death, the council in fact cleared the whole property, including personal effects.

The council acknowledged that this had been due to a miscommunication between their staff and apologised for the error. They had offered compensation but Ms C was not satisfied with the amount offered and that the rationale behind the amount had not been explained to her. Despite Ms C requesting an explanation from the council shortly after they made the offer, no explanation was forthcoming, despite a reminder from Ms C. The council eventually explained that a proportion of the compensation reflected the estimated cost of furnishings removed from the property and a proportion was intended to provide a contribution towards a memorial for Ms C's father in recognition of the personal items that were lost as a result of the miscommunication. However, this explanation was not given until some two and a half months later, and after Ms C had brought her complaint to us.

Our investigation focused on the council's delay in providing the explanation and found that despite the information being readily available at the time of Ms C's original request, it was not provided in a timely manner. The information was neither confidential nor commercially sensitive so there was no reason not to provide it to Ms C. We found this to be unreasonable, so we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in explaining the rationale behind the compensation offer.

Summary

Miss C complained that the housing association unreasonably failed to carry out work on her kitchen to the agreed specifications. Miss C raised a number of concerns, including that the association failed to supply and fit a breakfast bar and that the work took longer than the three days suggested by the association. Miss C said that she had to pay to have the breakfast bar installed and that the delay in the completion of the work meant that her daughter, who has a learning disability, had to stay in a caravan for a further week, and Miss C had to pay for this extra week's accommodation.

The evidence suggested that the association agreed to fit a hinged breakfast bar in Miss C's kitchen. The association said that when Miss C's tall fridge freezer was put back in place it was clear that the hinged breakfast bar could not be included in the design. However, Miss C said that she had an under counter fridge, not a tall fridge freezer, when the kitchen was planned and fitted, so the breakfast bar could have been included. We did not see clear evidence that a breakfast bar could not be fitted or evidence that the change in position was explained and confirmed to Miss C at the time. We concluded that the association unreasonably failed to carry out the works to Miss C's kitchen to the agreed specifications and we upheld Miss C's complaint.

It appeared that the reason the work in Miss C's kitchen took longer than expected was due to extensive re-plastering of the kitchen walls and this appeared to have been caused by the removal of Miss C's kitchen wallpaper. There was no documentary evidence indicating that, as Miss C suggested, the association told Miss C to remove the kitchen wallpaper. In these circumstances, we did not see evidence that the association acted unreasonably in this regard.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• feed back our decision on Miss C's complaint to the staff involved;
• put in place a system to record agreed works with tenants and any modifications subsequently required and agreed and ensure their records show when jobs are completed;
• compensate Miss C for the cost of installing her breakfast bar on receipt of appropriate invoices; and
• provide Miss C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the housing association on behalf of Mr A, a former tenant, regarding charges he had received for repairs required after he had left his property. He accepted that he had been asked at a pre-termination inspection to re-paint two walls but disputed the amount being requested, as he suspected that the amount was for further works that he was unaware of and had no opportunity to rectify.

Our investigation found that the association's communication with Mr A had been poor, with little information or justification given for the charges he was being asked to pay. We also found that the association's records showed that the works Mr A was being charged for were the painting of an entire room, including the ceiling and woodwork, even though only wall painting had been recorded as required on the inspection sheet signed by him and an inspector. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• provide us with clarification of how the additional charge to change the locks was added to Mr A's invoice;
• calculate the amount payable by Mr A by determining what portion of the cost of the paint work related to two black walls;
• consider reducing the revised amount payable by Mr A by 50 percent in light of the administrative failures;
• apologise to Mr A for the failings identified; and
• reflect on the learning from this case to inform the review of the rechargeable repairs procedures they have advised us that they are undertaking.