Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Miss C complained about the university regarding charges for repairs required to her previous accommodation. She disputed that she was responsible for the damage in question and was unhappy that she had not been provided with evidence to support the charges.

On investigation, we found that the university had failed to photograph the damage, in line with their procedures. We also considered that the level of detail recorded about the damage was insufficient to justify recharging the repairs. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• apologise to Miss C for the failings identified;
• refund the charges for the repairs in question to Miss C and her flatmates; and
• review their inspection procedures and paperwork to ensure that adequate evidence is gathered to support rechargeable repairs.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about Business Stream's handling of a leak at her property on the private supply pipe. She complained that while a leak was identified by Scottish Water contractors in August 2014 there was then an unreasonable delay by Scottish Water in taking action, leading to a large water bill from Business Stream.

We found that Business Stream had acted in line with their metering policy in carrying out two meter readings, one in April 2014 and one in October 2014. When the October reading suggested a significant increase in consumption, Business Stream alerted Mrs C. We therefore found that there was no evidence that there was any fault on the part of Business Stream in this regard. We also recognised that Mrs C had been charged only for normal consumption during the period of the complaint, and a leak allowance granted for the period of time from the April 2014 reading until the point at which the leak was identified in August. However, Business Stream explained that Scottish Water accepted there was a lack of communication and inaction on their part during the period of the complaint following the August site visit. As ultimately Business Stream are responsible for the service provided to Mrs C, in light of the communication failings and the delay in taking action after the leak was identified, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• offer a formal written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

In September 2014, after reading his water meter, Business Stream told Mr C that he had used a high level of consumption and that he may have a leak. He was issued with a bill in excess of £4,000. Mr C phoned Business Stream about this and it was suggested that he test whether there was a leak in his supply pipe. A leak was subsequently confirmed and Mr C was advised to contact a plumber as soon as possible because water was continuing to leak.

Mr C then raised concerns that there may be others attached to the supply pipe but in November 2014, it was confirmed that his was the only connection. He also complained that the leak had not been fixed as his costs were increasing and Business Stream liaised with Scottish Water to confirm ownership of the supply pipe. Scottish Water confirmed Mr C's ownership and thus the fact that any repair was his responsibility.

In February 2015, Business Stream explained that in terms of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, the owner of the supply pipe was responsible for its maintenance (that is, Mr C). He was urged to complete repairs as soon as possible as his bill continued to mount. Mr C complained that Business Stream had not made this situation clear to him when he first complained in September 2014.

We investigated the complaint and made enquiries of Business Stream. We found that although he was billed in September 2014 and told that repairs to the pipe were for him to carry out, it was not until February 2015 that Mr C was sent a detailed explanation for the reasons why he was responsible for the leak. We upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• provide Mr C with an appropriate apology; and
• ensure that explanations about the public's liability for payment are clearly explained to them.

Summary

Mr C complained that the adjudicator unreasonably failed to follow the correct process at his disciplinary hearing. In particular, he said that the adjudicator did not give him the chance to cross-examine the witness.

In their response to his complaint, the Scottish Prison Service told Mr C that the adjudicator had concerns about intimidation and that was why he was not allowed to cross-examine the witness. The prison rules say that prisoners must be given the opportunity to call witnesses and to cross-examine them. In addition, the relevant guidance says that a prisoner must be allowed to ask questions of witnesses but if they abuse that right, the adjudicator should require the questions to be put through them. That did not happen in Mr C's case.

We upheld Mr C's complaint because we concluded that he should have been given the opportunity to question the witness by putting his questions through the adjudicator.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by our investigation; and
• feed back the findings of our investigation to the adjudicator.

Summary

Mr C complained that the risk management team failed to appropriately demonstrate that they had taken a defensible decision in relation to his progression to less secure conditions. We found that the prison did not initially provide enough written detail to show how they had reached their decision on Mr C's progression. While the issue of Mr C's progression was entirely a matter for the prison to determine, we upheld Mr C's complaint about the level of written detail they provided to explain their decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• take steps to ensure that written decisions taken by the risk management team contain a sufficient level of detail so as to demonstrate that a defensible decision has been reached when considering a prisoner's progression to less secure conditions.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) included inaccurate information in his risk management team (RMT) paperwork, and he was concerned that this might have a detrimental effect on the consideration of his parole. In dealing with Mr C's complaint, we explained that our role was to check where the SPS sourced the information that was included, and if that information was up-to-date. We looked at the SPS' file on Mr C's complaint, the prison records provided to us by the SPS, and the SPS' RMT guidance. The guidance said staff at an RMT meeting should thoroughly research all relevant information and take account of it.

We found that prison staff were aware before the RMT meeting that there was more recent information about Mr C which could be provided by his new probation officer. However, the RMT paperwork made no reference to this and, at least in part, referred to information from Mr C's previous probation officer. In responding to our enquiry, the SPS referred us to other SPS documents, which they said would have informed Mr C's RMT paperwork. However, Mr C was transferred to the SPS from outside Scotland, and they were aware there were problems with the records that arrived with Mr C. The SPS documents about Mr C's time outside Scotland must have been informed by records from that other jurisdiction; however, the SPS did not provide us with the original evidence which first told them of Mr C's history there. This meant the SPS were not able to demonstrate to us that the information included in Mr C's RMT paperwork was accurate and up-to-date. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• ensure that they obtain all relevant information about Mr C's history outside Scotland, including the most up-to-date information from his new probation officer;
• ensure that the next RMT takes account of the most up-to-date information about Mr C's history; and
• ensure that any information provided to the relevant parole authority is up-to-date.

Summary

Ms C owned a property, behind which were three garages. Planning consent was granted for one of the garages to be converted into an office. Due to its close proximity to Ms C's property, a condition was included in the consent requiring the developer to replace the garage's window with glass blocks, to maintain Ms C's privacy. However, the developer installed a plain window which, whilst opaque, could be opened.

Ms C was disappointed to find that the council declined to take enforcement action to ensure that the required blocks were installed. She complained that the council failed to respond to her correspondence on the matter and failed to review their decision not to enforce the condition.

We found that the council had concluded that the original condition was worded in such a way that it was unenforceable. We accepted independent planning advice that this was not the case and that the council could have done more to ensure that Ms C's privacy was protected in line with the planning consent. We were also critical of their handling of her complaints and their failure to respond to relevant information she presented to them.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with details of the action they have taken to improve their mechanisms for logging and responding to correspondence coming into the planning enforcement service;
• conduct a review of their handling of this case with specific regard to the adviser's comments and consider what action may still be open to them to ensure that the purpose of the condition of consent is achieved;
• apologise to Ms C for the poorly worded condition and the impact that this has had on her amenity (enjoyment of her property or surroundings); and
• share our decision with the relevant staff.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the step at the gated footpath access to her house was broken by a contractor who was working for the council. Mrs C said the damage occurred while the contractor was replacing street lighting on the public footway outside the house.

Mrs C lodged a claim for the damaged step with the council. The council referred the claim to the contractor as they said it appeared from the information Mrs C had supplied that responsibility for the damage lay with the contractor. The council explained they had a contract with the contractor which required the contractor to have in place their own insurance. The council also stated that an indemnity clause in the contract meant that the council were not liable for any damage caused by the contractor and were not required to investigate matters that had been passed to third parties to manage in terms of the contract. The contractor subsequently rejected Mrs C's claim.

Mrs C complained to the council. We considered, from the evidence supplied to us, that it was reasonable for the council to have referred Mrs C's claim to the contractor and that the investigation of the claim and its outcome were a matter for the contractor. However, we also considered this did not absolve the council from addressing the concerns Mrs C had raised in her complaint about the alleged failure of the contractor in communicating with her. We found that no proper consideration had been given to whether Mrs C was still pursuing a claim for damages or making a complaint and that a lack of communication and coordination within the council had led to an unreasonable delay in the investigation of Mrs C's complaint. For this reason we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the delay in dealing with her complaint; and
• review their processes in relation to complaints handling in cases where more than one council department is involved; and where claims have been made against their contractors.

Summary

Mrs C complained about how school staff handled a report of bullying of her daughter. While Mrs C was satisfied with the handling of the matter at the time, she became concerned some months later when the pupils involved in the bullying behaviour were given additional opportunities within the school. She raised this with the school, as she thought that the bullying incident had been recorded on the pupils' education record, but the school told her the bullying was only recorded on the school's bullying log. Mrs C was dissatisfied with this, and she was also concerned that the school referred to the incident as an 'allegation of bullying' in their later correspondence with her, whereas she thought it had been agreed that bullying had occurred.

The council said the school handled the incident appropriately and in line with their bullying policy (which encourages a restorative approach). We asked the council to clarify whether they had found that bullying had occurred as this was not clear from the bullying log, and they confirmed that the incident had been recorded as one of bullying behaviour.

After investigating the matter, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. We found that staff complied with most aspects of the school's and the council's policies, including involving parents, arranging a restorative meeting and supporting Mrs C's daughter. However, the bullying log completed by the school did not match the form set out in the council's policy, so there was no detailed contemporaneous record of the investigation and findings. We also found that staff did not appear to be familiar with the school's bullying policy which required the incident to be recorded on the pupils' records, and they were following the council's bullying policy instead (which did not include this requirement).

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C and her daughter for failing to comply with some aspects of their policies in responding to their concerns about bullying; and
• review the school's bullying policy and reporting forms, to ensure that there is clear and consistent guidance on this process (and that this complies with the council's bullying policy and templates).

Summary

Ms C's mother was admitted to a care home and the council provided Ms C's family with a breakdown of the charges for the care home and invoiced the family accordingly. Following an admission to hospital, Ms C's mother returned to the care home, however, Ms C's family received no further invoices for the care home fees until the council wrote to them in the following year explaining that, following a recent review, it had been identified that, due to an administrative error, no invoices had been raised for the care home fees. Due to the amount of fees outstanding, a charging order was placed on Ms C's mother's property. Ms C complained to us that the council had acted unreasonably by failing to ensure that invoices for the care home fees were issued at the correct time.

Our investigation found that the council had made an administrative error in failing to invoice Ms C's family for the care home fees at the correct time – Ms C's mother's file was misfiled which led to her being omitted from the manual list of clients requiring yearly financial reassessment. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint. The council have recently introduced a system-generated automatic financial reassessment process which should prevent a similar situation occurring again in future.

We also had some concerns about the way in which the council had handled Ms C's complaint. The council had referred Ms C's complaint to a charging review panel on more than one occasion. This led to delays in responding to Ms C's complaint. Ms C's correspondence was not fully answered and the council's final response to Ms C's complaint failed to inform her of her right to submit her complaint to our office as the final stage in the complaints procedure. In light of this, we made recommendations to the council.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their handling of complaints which are referred to a charging review panel to ensure that they are handled in line with the model complaints handling procedure for local authorities and legislative requirements; and
• provide Ms C with a full response to the four points she sought clarification on in her original complaint letter.