Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison refused his request for escorted day absence (EDA) so he could visit a relative who was medically unable to travel to the prison. Mr C said his previous prisons had granted him EDAs to see the same relative, and the situation had not changed, so he could not understand why his request was refused.

The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 and the Scottish Prison Rules (Escorted Day Absence) Direction 2011 set out the criteria for EDAs. It is clear from this legislation that prison governors have discretion to decide whether an EDA application is being made in exceptional circumstances. The SPSO cannot challenge this discretion. However, even where there is discretion, such decisions must be justified on the basis of available evidence, and this information should be recorded. This ensures that, where appropriate, the process used to reach such decisions can be scrutinised, to ensure that the process is followed appropriately and, therefore, the decisions are not arbitrary.

In Mr C's case, neither his prison nor the Scottish Prison Service centrally were able to provide us with a copy of his completed EDA application. Therefore, there was no evidence that the EDA process was followed appropriately to its completion. In addition, Mr C's prison did not explain in their responses to his complaints, or in their response to our enquiry, why they did not consider his case to be exceptional circumstances. Given this, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

While we understand the need for prison governors to be able to make decisions in their prison based on local conditions and the specific circumstances of individual cases, the apparent lack of guidance on what might be considered exceptional circumstances for an EDA could lead to apparent unfair inconsistency between individual prisons which is difficult to explain. Therefore, we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to explain why his case was not considered to be exceptional circumstances;
• remind all prisons of the importance of keeping complete, accurate and current information in a prisoner's core file; and
• provide guidance to prison governors on what might constitute exceptional circumstances for an escorted day absence.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C tried to collect their son's property from a prison but were unable to do so. They complained that the prison failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that they could collect the property and did not respond appropriately to their complaint.

In response, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had told Mr and Mrs C that they could not collect the property because staff had not taken it to the correct collection area. However, in responding to our enquiries, they confirmed that the prison's actions in handling the property were in fact correct. They explained that the problem occurred because, when Mr and Mrs C tried to collect the property, the member of staff in the collection area was unaware that it was there. Although the SPS confirmed that the prison were reviewing the process, we upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaint and made a recommendation.

In considering whether the prison responded appropriately to their complaint, we identified that the response contained a number of inaccuracies and because of that, we also upheld this part of Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• tell us what steps the prison took to review the relevant procedure and confirm what changes, if any, have been implemented; and
• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the inaccuracies in their response to the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison failed to follow relevant procedures in providing him with food; specifically, that one meal provided to him was lower than the required temperature. Mr C said he saw food records which had missing days and dates, and that he spoke to staff who told him a meal had not been probed to check its temperature. Mr C said he had lost trust in the prison's ability to provide meals that were safe to eat.

We have no role in ensuring the health and safety of prison food. Our role in this case was to consider whether the prison acted in line with relevant processes or procedures. We looked at the food records and found that some entries were missed from the daily hot temperature record sheet. This evidence was accepted by the prison when they dealt with Mr C's complaint. It meant that the prison were unable to demonstrate that meals served each day had been probed, to ensure they were above the required minimum temperature of 63°C. As this was not compliant with the prison's food safety manual and The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

In response to Mr C's complaint the prison carried out an audit of compliance with the food safety manual over a number of weeks, which we found to be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. However, we were concerned that one part of the prison did not provide the necessary data sheets for the audit and, therefore, we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• ensure that all halls audited or inspected for compliance with the food safety manual provide the necessary data when requested to do so, and copy the results to us.

Summary

Mr C made a claim to the council for damage from a road accident caused by a pothole, saying that they had not maintained the road in line with their procedures. The council refused his claim, as they said they had complied with their procedures for inspecting the road, and repaired the pothole within the required time-frame. They also said the pothole was less than the minimum depth required for them to be liable for the accident. Mr C disagreed with several of these findings, and complained to the council that they had not handled his claim reasonably. They apologised for delays in responding, but did not agree that they had relied on inaccurate information. Mr C was dissatisfied with the council's response, and complained to us about their handling of his claim and complaint.

We found that the council had used inaccurate information when determining his claim, as they had used inspection dates for the wrong route and had relied on a measurement that they acknowledged was probably an estimate rather than an actual measurement. Although Mr C had video evidence of the pothole depth, which he offered to share, the council had not taken account of this. We also found that they failed to deal with his complaints reasonably, as they did not acknowledge or respond within the required time-frames, and did not consider all the available evidence. When Mr C complained that the information was inaccurate, the council double-checked the accident inspection report they had relied on, but did not compare this to documents that would have shown that the information was inaccurate.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures for identifying, logging and tracking complaints, to ensure that the time-frames in the complaints handling procedure are met;
• remind complaints handling staff of the importance of considering and testing all the evidence available, particularly where factual issues are disputed by the complainant;
• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failings our investigation found;
• consider amending their job ticket templates, so that it is clear the published 'target date' is for inspection rather than repair, and to include the target date for repairs; and
• reconsider Mr C's claim, in line with their procedures.

Summary

Mr C was involved in correspondence with the council about a transport issue and submitted a complaint. He received an acknowledgement email but no further response from the council that referred to the complaint or dealt with the issues he had raised. Mr C raised his complaint with us. We found that the council had received the complaint but a procedural failure meant that the relevant department had not taken action on it. In light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to respond to his complaint;
• respond fully to Mr C's complaint; and
• undertake a practical test to confirm that the further training given has been successful in ensuring that no further correspondence is missed.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to ensure that scheduled refuse and recycling collections took place at his building.

We looked at Mr C's complaints to the council, the council's responses, and the council's records of inspection of cleansing operations. We found that there had been problems with collections at times over the past three years. Mr C had to contact the council repeatedly over this time, which indicated a poor standard of service from the council, who appeared to be failing in their responsibility to deal effectively with collections at Mr C's building.

We found there was a lack of co-ordination and poor communication about the collections within the relevant council department. We noted that the department was seeking a long-term resolution to the problem. However, based on the evidence, we concluded that the problem had not been resolved. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for their failure to ensure that scheduled refuse and recycling collections took place; and
• review the presentation and collection of refuse and recycling at Mr C's building to ensure that scheduled collections take place.

Summary

When the council created a multi-surface games court in the park close to Mr C's home they removed a number of trees. This dramatically changed the outlook from Mr C's window. Mr C complained when, in spite of repeated assurances that the council would replace foliage and would keep him informed, they did not do this. Mr C complained to us about this and the way in which the council responded to his complaint and enquiries.

Our investigation looked at all the available evidence, including the council's correspondence with Mr C, the internal council correspondence and the council's complaints handling procedures. We found that they had acted reasonably by meeting Mr C at the site and in determining that replanting outside Mr C's home was adequate. However, we found that his complaints about the assurances he had been given were not handled promptly and the investigation response he received was not detailed enough to address the issues arising from his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for not responding promptly to his complaint;
• review their practice with relevant staff to ensure that letters of complaint are correctly identified and handled; and
• consider how best to ensure that investigation responses are sufficiently detailed.

Summary

Mr C had complained to the council some time ago about the refuse collection service in his street. The council apologised and took action to improve Mr C's experience of the service. They told him that the local supervisor would monitor collections, gave him direct contact details to report any further difficulties and assured him that they would fully investigate any further service failings. After giving the council time to allow these measures to be implemented, Mr C felt that the service had not improved and complained again.

The council said that they treated this as a new complaint because more than a year had passed since he first complained. They did not, however, acknowledge or respond to it, and Mr C complained again. As well as complaining about refuse collection he also raised concerns about the council's complaints handling, but they did not pick up on this and Mr C asked us to look at his complaint.

Our investigation found that the council's complaints handling procedure (CHP), which is based on the model CHP from our Complaints Standards Authority, says that staff should use discretion when applying timescales. We found that Mr C contacted the council on an almost monthly basis when the service did not improve, which meant that his second complaint was not a new one. It was about an ongoing issue and should have been dealt with at stage two of their CHP. The CHP also says that the council will establish what a complaint is about at the start, but we saw no evidence that they did so in Mr C's case. Neither did we see evidence that the stage two response had senior executive sign-off which, again, is contrary to the CHP. We found that the council did not handle Mr C's complaint reasonably, and made two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings our investigation identified; and
• remind staff of the requirements of the model CHP, focusing in particular on the failings our investigation identified.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about a bill the council issued them for rechargable repairs. A year previously the council had helped check and fit three light fittings for Mr and Mrs C. When they terminated the tenancy they had asked at the council offices if they should leave the light fittings in place. Mr and Mrs C said that the council staff phoned another member of staff who advised them to leave the lights and there would be no charge.

When Mr and Mrs C complained the council said that they had spoken to staff, who said that they would not have given that advice.

During our investigation we found that the council had not spoken to the relevant staff during their investigation. We asked them to speak to those staff members during the course of our investigation, but they did not.

As the council could not demonstrate that they had thoroughly investigated the main point of Mr and Mrs C's complaint, we upheld their complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind relevant staff of the importance of complying with the SPSO complaints handling principles;
• consider removing the outstanding charges; and
• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings we identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained that part of her dental work was provided on a private basis without her prior knowledge or consent. She said that she was not given a written treatment plan or cost comparison before the treatment was carried out. The dentist said that Mrs C was given a verbal explanation of the treatment options available to her, together with details of the costs, and that fee information was also clearly displayed in the practice reception and on the practice's website. He indicated that Mrs C had provided consent, having been told that part of the treatment was not available on the NHS, and a written treatment plan was not provided as Mrs C had not yet made a firm decision on all the treatment to be carried out.

We took independent advice on this complaint from one of our advisers, who is a general dental surgeon. He said that it was not sufficient for patients to receive information relating to treatment costs verbally and through notices displayed in the practice and online. The relevant regulations and guidance require that a written treatment plan, including an estimate of costs, is provided to the patient before treatment starts, and it can be revised later if the treatment plan changes. As Mrs C was not provided with a written treatment plan, we upheld her complaint and made some recommendations.

We also found some failings in the dentist's handling of Mrs C's complaint. We were critical that he suggested to Mrs C that no further treatment would be provided until her complaint was resolved or withdrawn. Complaints handling guidance and regulations require that a practitioner's first responsibility is to ensure that the patient's immediate health care needs are being met, if relevant at the time the complaint is made. We did not consider that the dentist's actions were in keeping with the spirit of this requirement. We also identified other areas where the dental practice's complaints procedure was not compliant with regulations and guidance, particularly with regards to information that should be provided within a written acknowledgement of a complaint, and in respect of their duty to signpost complainants to us. We, therefore, made some further recommendations about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the dentist:

• arrange for the practice's policies and procedures in respect of treatment plans to be reviewed, ensuring that such plans are provided in line with the relevant regulations and guidance;
• issue Mrs C with a refund for the private element of her treatment;
• apologise to Mrs C for failing to provide her with a written treatment plan;
• arrange for the practice’s complaints handling policy to be reviewed to ensure compliance with their statutory responsibilities, as set out in the Can I Help You? guidance: in particular, ensuring that complaints do not adversely impact on patients’ immediate health care needs; when acknowledging complaints, the practice ensures that all required information is provided to complainants; and complainants are appropriately signposted to the SPSO in the practice’s final response to complaints; and
• apologise to Mrs C for failing to respond appropriately to her complaint.