Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of his post programme report (the report) which was required eight weeks after the completion of his treatment programme. Mr C complained that, due to the delay in completing the report, his tribunal hearing had been adjourned and had the hearing not been adjourned authorisation for his release from prison may have been given. Also, as a result of the adjournment of the tribunal, his annual review which had been held in May would now be held in November.

The evidence showed that there had been an unreasonable delay in the completion of Mr C's report, so we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the hearing had also been adjourned for other reasons, including that Mr C was required to undertake further elements of the treatment programme. We found that even had the report not been delayed it was very unlikely that Mr C would have been able to complete all outstanding work by the date of the tribunal held in May.

We were aware that the SPS had taken action in response to a previous complaint to us in relation to avoiding unnecessary delays in the completion of reports. In addition, the SPS had taken action to address the specific factors faced by the prison at the time of this complaint which had impacted on the prison's ability to complete reports. As a result we recommended that the SPS apologise to Mr C for the delay in completing his report.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delay in completing his post programme report.

Summary

Mr C complained that his son's school had introduced a new policy on excursions that impacted unfairly on his son, who had a disability. Mr C said the school failed to consult him about the new policy and failed to take into account his son's needs and the Equality Act in developing the policy. Mr C also said the school applied the policy to his son in an unreasonable way, as they did not take into account his son's individual needs or ask his son's opinion when deciding whether an excursion would be suitable for him.

The council agreed that the school did not consult properly with parents of disabled pupils before they introduced the policy, but they said the school had now taken measures to improve their communication. However, the council said the school had taken the Equality Act and the needs of disabled pupils into account in developing the policy, and they had considered Mr C's son's individual needs when they applied the policy to him.

After investigating Mr C's concerns and taking independent equalities advice, we upheld the complaints. We found there was no evidence that the school had complied with their own Equality Policy or guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which sets out how organisations should take into account the public sector equality duty in developing new policies and making decisions. While the council said the policy complied with the Equality Act, there was no evidence that staff had actively considered the public sector equality duty or the impact of the policy on disabled students during the decision-making process. We also found there was no evidence the school took Mr C's son's individual needs into account when they applied the policy to him.

While we also found the school did not consult properly with parents before they introduced the policy, we accepted that the measures the school took to improve their communication were effective, as there was evidence that the school consulted parents appropriately when they later amended the policy.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings our investigation found;
• remind school staff of the requirements of the public sector equality duty and the council's equality policy in relation to considering the equality impact of new policies and practices; and
• reconsider the excursion policy, taking into account the requirements of the Equality Act and the council's equality policy.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council were incorrectly pursuing her for payment of council tax arrears for a period after she had vacated her rented flat. Ms C said that she had paid the council tax demand she had received from the council, and when she notified them she was moving out two months before the lease ended, she was told her account had been closed. Subsequently, she had received council tax demands for sums due before she left, and until the formal end of her lease. The council had admitted to her that they had made mistakes with her council tax account. However, Ms C told us that they had not satisfactorily explained to her why they had told her that her account would be closed when she vacated the flat, had then made further demands, and then continued to send her demands for different amounts.

We upheld Ms C's complaint because it was clear not only that she had been given incorrect advice at the outset that her account would close when she vacated the flat, but there had been a catalogue of errors following on from this in the handling of her council tax liability. The council had recognised that their service to her was poor when they responded to her formal complaints, and apologised. However, we considered that more could be done to resolve Ms C's complaint because the council had failed to provide her with demands for payment which showed that they had correctly calculated both what she had paid into her account, and what she owed.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a time and trouble payment to Ms C; and
• review Ms C's council tax liability and payments record and provide fresh billing notifications, with a covering letter explaining any changes made.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed or refused to answer reasonable enquiries he had made about repairs which were being undertaken on his property from statutory notices which had been served in 2008 and 2009. His partner (Ms C) had raised a complaint with them in 2011, and it had been closed without notification or an explanation. There had been other problems of poor communication by the council; works on two statutory notices had been completed, but he was not informed about this until 2014, and his query about an outstanding notice had not been answered. He was aggrieved because, despite what he considered had been very clear failings in addressing his concerns, the council had pressed him for payment when they issued the invoice, and threatened him with court proceedings if his payment was delayed.

From our investigation we found that Mr C had been wrongly informed that his complaint had been closed, because it had been considered by the independent panel set up by the council to consider complaints about statutory notices in 2013. We upheld this complaint. However, as the council had apologised to Mr C for their failings when they dealt with his complaint under their complaints process, and confirmed that they had taken action to improve their customer service, we did not make a recommendation about this.

Mr C had also complained that the council did not reply to his complaint about the failure to provide him with temporary heating during the works. We found no evidence that Mr C had been promised temporary heating. However, the matter had been raised by his partner with the council in 2011, and the council accepted this had not been dealt with. We upheld the complaint but were satisfied that the apology which had been given to Mr C was an appropriate resolution.

We upheld both of Mr C's complaints about the unreasonable failure to explain why the project had been suspended in 2011, and unreasonable delay to tell him that the works on two of the statutory notices had been completed in 2010. We recommended that the council should apologise to Mr C for their shortcomings. However, we did not consider that the failure we had identified was sufficient reason to recommend a reduction or the cancellation of the council's administrative fee, which was part of what Mr C sought in making a complaint to us.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C and Ms C for the failure of both the council and the contract administrator to provide clarity about their respective roles and the suspension of the projects; and
• apologise to Mr C and Ms C for the failure to communicate with them about the status of the statutory notices.

Summary

Mr C is the landlord of several properties which he lets. He said that over the years he has received council tax bills for the full charge even although the properties were empty and he was due a ten percent exemption. He complained that the council were implementing a policy whereby they automatically billed for a full charge and that they failed to make any appropriate enquiries about the status of the property concerned.

Further enquiries were made of the council and the complaint was investigated. This showed that current legislation allowed that in circumstances like those of Mr C, the council should make a ten percent reduction but that in his case, because of human error, this had not happened. The situation was one of carelessness, rather than of a lack of understanding of the legislation. There was no policy to automatically bill the full charge but because of the error, we upheld Mr C's complaint. As a result of Mr C's complaint, the council have emphasised to staff what they should be doing in relation to unoccupied properties between lets and they have undertaken a three month check to ensure that this policy is followed. They are also in discussion with their software supplier in attempt to remove human error.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• advise us of the outcome of their check and, in the event of a continued failure, of the further action they intend to take; and
• inform us of the outcome of their discussions with their software supplier.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to provide her with a reasonable explanation about the overpayment to her of housing benefit, and unreasonably delayed in processing the change relating to the end of her childcare costs.

Following our investigation of Miss C's complaint, we found that she was entitled to a statutory right of appeal if she considered that the decision notices she received were incorrect, so we were unable to address whether the council's re-calculation of her benefit claims had been properly undertaken. However, we looked at her complaint to us about administrative fault and found that the council had responded appropriately to her concerns about how the overpayment arose, but upheld her complaint because the council's decision notices had not provided a reasonable explanation about the overpayment. The council had recognised she was not provided with a lot of detail, and told her that revision of the decision notice was under review. We were satisfied that the improvement planned would provide a satisfactory outcome to her complaint. However, we made recommendations for improvements in the process (inclusion in the final letter in the complaints procedure to the claimant's statutory right of appeal to a tribunal, and additional information in the planned revised decision notice to 'time' in the right to apply for a revision of the decision by the council or appeal).

We also upheld Miss C's complaint that there had been a period of delay in processing the change relating to the end of her child care costs. However, as the council had already recognised this and apologised to her, we considered that appropriate action had been taken to resolve Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider including a reminder within the final letter signposting a complainant to us about their right as a claimant to a statutory right of appeal if they think the council's decision on their benefit claim is wrong;
• share the outcome of this complaint with the relevant staff; and
• include a reference to time in the right to apply for a revision of the decision or appeal against it, in the information which will be made available in the council's revised notice.

Summary

When Mr C moved out of his property, into a larger council property, he was sent a bill for rechargeable repairs that needed to be carried out. Mr C complained that there had not been a pre-termination inspection which would have alerted him to any changes he had made to the property which the council were not satisfied with. Mr C also said he had offered to carry out the repairs himself, as he could not afford the estimated cost the council provided him with. When Mr C did receive the full invoice for the works, they were more than double the estimate previously provided and Mr C also complained about this.

During our investigation we found the reason no pre-termination inspection was carried out was because the council themselves had set a very tight deadline for Mr C to move into the new property, so that he would avoid paying two rents. We also found the council had not responded to Mr C's later offer to correct the work himself. For these reasons we upheld this complaint and recommended the council apologise to Mr C.

We also found the council were unable to specify exactly why Mr C's final bill was so much higher than originally estimated. While they provided general comments that it was difficult to predict exactly how each job would progress, we were not satisfied they could robustly explain what happened in Mr C's case. For these reasons, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to address this.

During the investigation we also identified a number of administrative failings, including unreasonable delays, confusion over the appeals route and complaints procedure and made recommendations to address these aspects as well. In light of the failings, we also recommended the council cancel Mr C's invoice.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified;
• cancel the outstanding invoice;
• reflect on the failings identified and how to prevent them occurring again;
• review the rechargeable repairs appeals procedure and ensure that it refers to us at the end of the process; and
• provide us with a copy of the standardised tool for estimating repair costs.

Summary

Mr and Mr C complained about a programme of improvement works carried out by a contractor on behalf of their landlord (the housing association). They complained about the information they were given ahead of the works, and about issues with the quality of the work and damage to their property. They also complained about the way the association and the contractor had handled their complaints.

Our investigation found that the association and the contractor had provided reasonable information ahead of the works taking place, though there was a last minute delay in one element of the work, which was unacceptable. The association had already apologised for this and paid compensation.

We reviewed the time taken to resolve the range of defects at Mr and Mr C's property, and were critical of the time taken to resolve these issues. In particular, we were critical that a meeting to resolve these issues only appeared to take place because Mr and Mr C had brought their complaint to us.

Mr and Mr C complained to both the association and the contractor on different occasions. We found that the responses they received were not proactive and did not reflect the on-going difficulties Mr and Mr C were having. The association went on to conduct a 'lessons learned' exercise, based partly on Mr and Mr C's complaints. This identified several areas of service improvement, though it is not clear that any of these issues would have come to light if Mr and Mr C had complained to us. We were critical of this approach. We were also concerned about the lack of integration between the association's complaints procedure and that of its contractors.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Mr and Mr C for the delay in correcting defects at their property following window replacement and cladding works, and for the failings identified in their complaints handling;
• provide evidence that the improvements identified in the lessons learned exercise have been implemented; and
• provide evidence of the improvements in complaints handling.

Summary

Mrs A, who had cancer, was admitted to Monklands Hospital as an emergency. Her daughter (Ms C) complained that although it was known that Mrs A was at risk from Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT - a blood clot in a vein), she was not given preventative drugs. Ms C said that as a consequence, Mrs A developed DVT with bilateral emboli (blood clots on both lungs) and required painful, daily injections until her death a few months later.

We took independent advice from a consultant physician and the complaint was investigated. This showed that Mrs A had been at risk from DVT and accordingly, she should have been started on preventative medication in line with standard guidelines. Despite the board saying that their decision not to give the preventative medication was likely to have been because Mrs A was anaemic and they were concerned about blood loss, there was no record which stated this in her medical notes, nor had any alternative, mechanical methods of prevention been discussed. In light of our findings, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• make a formal apology in recognition of their failure to treat Mrs A appropriately; and
• consider incorporating printed boxes for preventative medication into their notes and drug charts - and adding a prompt to ask the doctor to annotate a reason if this was not prescribed.

Summary

Mr C complained that for a period of over three months he attended the practice with symptoms of a painful and swollen foot and that they did not refer him to hospital for specialist advice. Initially he was referred to A&E where he was diagnosed as suffering from deep vein thrombosis (a blood clot in the vein). The pain became so unbearable that Mr C again attended A&E where an MRI scan (a scan used to diagnose health conditions that affect organs, tissue and bone) was arranged and this showed that he had peripheral artery disease (narrowing of the arteries which affects the legs). Mr C had had to endure surgery and believed that the practice should have referred him back to the hospital sooner.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. The adviser said that it appeared that Mr C had developed acute ischaemia (lack of blood supply) of his right limb and that this usually occurs as a sudden event on the background of a patient having peripheral vascular disease (a common condition in which a build-up of fatty deposits in the arteries restricts blood supply to leg muscles). However, although the practice had recorded Mr C's continuing symptoms (indicative of peripheral vascular disease) they failed to undertake appropriate investigations themselves or make a referral to the vascular clinic. Our adviser pointed out that although the practice failed to provide Mr C with reasonable care for his peripheral vascular disease his requirement for surgery was as a result of an acute event which could not have been predicted. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings we identified; and
• share this report with all GPs at the practice and reflect on the adviser's comments.