Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C's company owned several office units at one address and a series of warehouse units at another. He complained about the rateable value (RV) Business Stream used for charging his properties at the first address and also about his difficulties in resolving a separate billing query at the second.

We upheld both of Mr C's complaints. The key issue about the RV was whether Business Stream should use the valuation from 2000 or 2012. Their policy said that the RV from 2000 was the default – although there were exceptions to this – but they said that, in this case, they were entitled to use the 2012 valuation. Mr C maintained that, because the properties had not been physically modified since they were built and had simply been leased to one tenant, they were wrong to use the 2012 valuation. After considering the evidence, on balance, we took the view that Business Stream's use of the 2012 RV was not in accordance with their RV policy.

There had been a considerable amount of correspondence about the billing query involved in the second complaint. Mr C had been in touch with several staff members and there was a delay because of their initial view about the charges involved. Business Stream then made enquiries of their wholesaler and changed their view on this. Although the issue was resolved we found that, on balance, their administrative handling of this fell below a reasonable standard.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• recalculate and backdate Mr C's account based on the appropriate rateable value in line with their rateable value policy; and
• apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delay in resolving his complaints about their charges.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was placed on closed visits (where a prisoner and a visitor cannot make physical contact) due to his unacceptable behaviour. Mr C complained to us because he said the prison failed to review his closed visits status appropriately. He said he was not told that this was being reviewed, was not given the opportunity to make representations and was not told the outcome of the reviews.

In response to Mr C's complaint, the prison initially indicated that the correct process had been followed. We asked them to provide evidence to show us that this had happened. In response, they said that reviews of Mr C's closed visit status did take place. They could not, however, provide sufficient evidence to show us that this had actually happened, because the relevant paperwork was incomplete or unavailable. In the light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in the prison's handling of the reviews of his closed visits status.
• 

Summary

Mr C phoned the council's Scottish Welfare Fund team to ask about applying for a crisis grant. The call handler said that he was not eligible because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Mr C then complained because he felt the call handler did not deal with his enquiries properly. In responding to the complaint, the council said they were sorry that Mr C was unhappy with the service, but confirmed that because he was not in receipt of an appropriate qualifying benefit, he was not eligible.

In response to our enquiries, the council told us that they did not process a claim for Mr C because it was clear he did not meet the relevant criteria for a crisis grant. They also said that, since then, the Scottish Government had relaxed the eligibility criteria and if he was now to apply with similar circumstances, they might be able to consider his application. We checked the Scottish Government guidance that was in place when Mr C contacted the council. This confirmed that those applying for a crisis grant should normally be in receipt of certain benefits. However, the guidance also said that the key test of eligibility for a crisis grant was the severity of the applicant's circumstances and the likely impact on them and their family. It also said that if an applicant was not in receipt of qualifying benefits, the council could make an exception to the requirement for this if they were satisfied that the person had no other means of support, and an award would avoid serious damage or risk to the health or safety of them or their family.

We found that in saying that Mr C was not eligible for a crisis grant the council effectively made a decision on his request. In addition, when the Scottish Government clarified the guidance, they did not relax the criteria. The guidance in place when Mr C contacted the council clearly said that the key test of eligibility was the need of the individual, not whether they were in receipt of a qualifying benefit, and that the authority had discretion to make an exception to that requirement. In light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint and found that the council should have processed his application. Had they done so, Mr C could have accessed the review process after being told that he did not meet the criteria, which might have changed the outcome of his application.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to handle his enquiries about a crisis grant appropriately; and
• remind staff administering the Scottish Welfare Fund that, if a person clearly wants to apply, they should process an application appropriately even if success is unlikely.
• 

Summary

Ms C received emails from a council officer that contained comments that she felt were inappropriate. She complained to the council about these and had to chase up replies. When the replies were given, Ms C was dissatisfied with them and complained to us.

We contacted the council asking whether they would act to resolve the complaint, and they did take some action. We then decided to investigate the complaints, and concluded that the emails did contain inappropriate comments about Ms C, and that the council had not responded reasonably to her complaints. As, however, the council had already apologised to her for the inappropriate comments, we did not need to make a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C that the time taken to respond to her complaints was not reasonable.

Summary

Miss C complained to the council about the actions of their agents while they were pursuing a debt with her, and the way she had been spoken to by a council officer on the phone. The council did not respond to her specific concern about the council officer when they replied to her complaints, and so Miss C raised this with us.

Our investigation found that the council had taken steps to clarify the specific matters Miss C wished to complain of. As these included the way she had been spoken to by a council officer and this was not addressed in the council's response, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C that they did not respond to her specific complaint about the way that a council officer had spoken to her.

Summary

Ms C complained about how the council acted in response to her concerns about an aerial mast in her neighbour's garden, and about their handling of her complaint about this.

We obtained independent planning advice on the complaint from one of our advisers. The council had decided not to take enforcement action against Ms C's neighbour, and taking into account the advice we received, we accepted that this decision was reasonable. The evidence, however, showed a number of failings by the council in handling Ms C's planning enforcement complaint. These included failing to provide a timely response, unreasonably acting on personal information and pre-warning Ms C's neighbour of the initial visit by the planning enforcement officer. On balance, we considered that the council did not act reasonably in respect of Ms C's concerns about the mast.

In terms of the overall handling of Ms C's complaint, we were concerned that when Ms C indicated that she was dissatisfied with the service provided by the council's planning enforcement staff, the council in some of their responses failed to correctly recognise when her planning enforcement complaint became a formal complaint. It was only through Ms C's persistence that this was rectified.

We considered that, given the significance of the overall complaints handling issue described above, on balance, the council failed to reasonably handle Ms C's complaint about the planning enforcement service.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back the failings identified to the staff involved to try to prevent a future occurrence;
• ensure that in future full records are kept of site visits in accordance with the council's planning enforcement charter;
• provide us with documentary evidence that they have reviewed their Charter to make it clear that staff should not make contact with third parties during enforcement investigations; and
• provide Ms C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C was excluded from all the leisure facilities operated by the trust after an incident at one of the centres, which involved a member of staff. He complained that the investigation into his complaint about being excluded failed to take account of all the evidence.

We found that the decision to exclude Mr C appeared to have been taken on an arbitrary basis at the discretion of senior staff within the trust, and that they put no time-frame on his exclusion. The trust told us that they did not have a particular policy about excluding customers. We also found evidence that their investigation was not completed properly, because they did not clarify with Mr C what he was complaining about, and the evidence on which they relied in coming to their decision was incomplete, informal or unavailable. We upheld his complaints and made relevant recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the trust:

• prioritise formulating appropriate policy and procedures on the handling of complaints about unacceptable behaviour by customers, and the penalties if a complaint is upheld;
• consider the requirement for any complaint about a customer to be put to him/her in writing, providing advice of the right to make representations and a deadline for the submission, and an explanation of how any investigation will be conducted;
• set timescales for the length of time an exclusion will be in place when the trust have decided to exclude a customer from their facilities; and
• revisit the current situation on Mr C's exclusion in the light of the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C told us he had raised concerns about the behaviour, actions and attitudes of a number of council staff towards him. The council said they did not consider the complaints handling procedure to be the appropriate process to investigate his concerns and that they had been looked at under internal management policies instead. Mr C was unhappy with this decision and complained to us.

We looked at the model complaints handling procedure on which all councils should base their internal procedure, as introduced by our Complaints Standards Authority. This says that it should cover complaints about staff attitude, and also requires councils to advise complainants about their right to come to us if they remain dissatisfied after their consideration of a complaint.

We said that the council's interpretation was incorrect. Mr C's complaints about staff attitudes should have been considered under the complaints handling procedure. If investigation of such a complaint about staff attitude indicated that disciplinary action was indicated, then any disciplinary proceedings should be considered in private rather than as part of the complaints handling procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for failing to consider Mr C's complaints under the complaints handling procedure and for failing to inform him of his right to complain to the SPSO; and
• ensure internal guidance to staff on the complaints handling procedure accurately reflects the distinction between complaints about staff attitudes and the disciplinary procedures that may flow from such complaints, and provide us with a copy of the guidance.

Summary

Ms C became concerned about her child's educational progress after the child moved schools and reported classroom disruption. She complained to the council about this, and said that the school adopted a defensive and unhelpful attitude at a meeting she attended. The council investigated, but did not uphold her complaints.

Ms C then complained to us that the council did not adequately investigate and respond to her. Our investigation found that the council's investigation had not established all the relevant facts, and we upheld her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for not adequately investigating and responding to her complaint; and
• investigate further her concerns about her child's individual progress and the classroom environment.

Summary

Mr C had outstanding council tax to pay for 2012/13, and made two payments to cover this. However, the council's computer system can only match payments with the exact amount outstanding, and Mr C had paid by sending two sums totalling the amount owed. Where the amount paid does not match the full amount owed, the system defaults to allocate it against the current year's council tax bill. Mr C did not know this, and had correctly followed the council's instructions when making his payments. He then received a summary warrant for the outstanding 2012/13 amount. He challenged the bill, and the council then said he had council tax outstanding for 2012/13. They later found that the sums paid had been allocated to the wrong year, but told him they could have done nothing to avoid this or the problems that later occurred. Mr C was unhappy at the time they took to identify the error and cancel the summary warrant, and complained to us.

We found that Mr C could not have been expected to be aware of the problem. We noted what the council said about their computer system, and that it cannot be modified, but we took the view that they were aware of this, and that it was for them to sort out problems that might arise. There was no evidence that they had done so, and the council's file showed that no-one checked Mr C's council tax records before applying for the warrant to be served. We would also expect the council to have checked his records and identified the problem when he then got in touch about the warrant, but this did not happen until he asked for a detailed breakdown of his account. We found that the council did not take adequate steps to investigate Mr C's concerns when he raised them, and so unnecessarily pursued him for unpaid council tax.

We also found that when Mr C complained, the council did not tell him that there would be a delay in replying, and he had to chase them several times for a response. When they did respond, they did so comprehensively and provided detailed answers to his complaint. However, we found that they could have acted sooner to address his concerns when he raised them. Lack of effective investigation at the early stages meant a large exchange of emails, and ultimately led to his complaint. There were also delays in recognising the error in Mr C's bill, in communicating with the sheriff officers, and in responding to his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their processes for payment of council tax arrears, obtaining summary warrants for unpaid council tax and dealing with queries about such warrants, to ensure that any computer errors of the type noted in this complaint can be identified by council staff; and
• make a redress payment to Mr C in recognition of their failure to identify the computer error at an early stage and to communicate the cancellation of the summary warrant promptly to the sheriff officers.