Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream's handling of his account. He had wanted to change water supplier but could not as his account was not 'tradable'. (This is a particular status that a water or waste water connection must have in the market to allow a bill to be issued.) Mr C was unhappy with this and complained about subsequent delay by Business Stream in advising him that his account had been made tradable. He was also unhappy that Business Stream had applied a recovery charge, and had pursued recovery action when they had told him no action would be taken, given his circumstances.

We found that the delay in Mr C's account becoming tradable had prevented him from changing supplier, and that Business Stream delayed in telling him when his account became tradable. They had, however, apologised, removed the recovery charge and placed a credit on his account in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him. Business Stream had explained that they had made an initial recovery charge because they received incomplete information, and a payment Mr C had made had not been applied to his account. They had removed the charge after Mr C sent them information. We found no evidence that they had told him they would not take normal recovery action, when later payments were not made to his account.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• reinforce the apology and financial redress already offered to Mr C by crediting his account with 50 percent of the outstanding balance on the account.

Summary

When Mr C and his wife moved into their house in 2005 they started a bed and breakfast business. A water supply meter had previously been installed and Mr C told Scottish Water that he wished to retain that supply. The market in licensed water suppliers opened up in 2008, but Business Stream (the default licensed supplier) did not contact Mr C until 2011. They then did not invoice him until March 2013 when they charged him for water and waste water for the five years from 1 April 2008. The readings on which Mr C's charges were calculated were initially inaccurate and in total some 12 invoices were sent to him.

Mr C was dissatisfied with how Business Stream responded to his complaint and complained to us that they had failed to provide adequate, actual meter readings throughout the five year period and had failed to act promptly in respect of his bills. We upheld both of his complaints. Our investigation found that although eleven meter readings were taken between April 2007 and January 2013, Mr C did not receive a bill until March 2013, and when he did, it was wrong. Even though Mr C had contacted them in 2012 and established that water charges were appropriate, Business Stream still did not act quickly enough to let him know how much he was due to pay.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for not taking action to resolve matters in 2012 and comply with his wish to go on to e-billing and direct payments, and for not responding to the matters he raised in one of his letters; and
• agree to settle on the basis of a particular invoice less a five percent sum in respect of e-billing reductions for consumption, and a suitable allowance for waste water charges at the time of a water supply leak, in terms of the Burst Allowance Policy.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy as he thought that Scottish Water had wrongly installed a water meter at his business in 2003. When he became aware of this, in 2012, he contacted Business Stream. They said that the meter was believed to have been installed correctly, and that Scottish Water would neither remove nor resite it. Mr C complained to us about this, as he believed that he had been unfairly paying for water used by the flats above his property for ten years and that he was entitled to a refund.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had wrongly categorised Mr C's property as dual use, which suggested that there was a connection between his commercial property and the residential properties. We found that the residential properties had been paying for water through their council tax, and that the properties were not connected. Business Stream had told Mr C that he should contact the owners of the residential properties, and ask them to request a refund of their council tax, to then pass on to Mr C to pay for the water bill. We took the view that this was unfair - Mr C's property had been wrongly categorised, he had paid for water he had not used and Business Stream and Scottish Water had not done enough to try and resolve the situation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in our investigation;
• consider backdating the revised billing arrangements for Mr C's business to 2003; and
• re-install Mr C's water meter so that it only records water consumption for his business.

Summary

Mr C complained that his supervision level in prison was raised from low to medium supervision without good reason. We explained to Mr C that decisions to change someone's supervision level are a matter for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), not for us, and our only role in considering such a complaint is to see whether they followed their procedures in reaching the decision. During our investigation the SPS could not provide us with a particular form, which meant they could not evidence that the process was followed in Mr C's case. For that reason, we upheld his complaint.

Mr C also made various complaints about the way SPS handled his complaint. We considered that a number of his points did show that it had not been handled appropriately. For example, he was not given part of a complaint form which related to escalating his complaint to the next level in SPS; they did not address a significant part of his complaint; and there was some delay.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• remind staff to retain completed PSS3 forms securely and in accordance with normal process;
• remind the officers who held the internal complaints committee of the need to address issues raised when considering complaints; and
• apologise to Mr C for the delay in the prison governor's reply.

Summary

Mr C, a prisoner, complained that staff at his prison carried out a personal search in a manner that was unreasonable in his particular circumstances. In looking at Mr C's complaint, our role was to examine whether the prison followed the correct procedure in carrying out the search.

When we looked at the search procedures we found that they said that, after a search, the final stage was to complete relevant paperwork. There was no paperwork, and we concluded that the prison had not completed this as they should have done. This meant we could not determine whether the prison followed the correct procedure when Mr C was searched and, consequently, whether it was reasonable. Because of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• amend the body search procedures to make clear in which cases relevant paperwork should be completed.

Summary

Mr C was on a work placement from which he was expected to return directly to his open prison. However, he diverged from his designated route back there after finding out about particular family circumstances beyond his control. As this breached his temporary release licence conditions, a Risk Management Team (RMT) meeting was held to discuss this. As a result, Mr C was downgraded to closed prison conditions and his supervision level was increased.

Mr C complaint that the prison failed to adequately take into account his family situation when reaching their decision to downgrade him and the length of the downgrade. After reviewing his complaint, and all the relevant paperwork, including information from the prisons concerned, and the relevant RMT guidance, we concluded that the RMT paperwork failed to show which of four criteria listed in the guidance applied in Mr C's case, and so did not show why they took the view that he merited that punishment. We had further concerns that the paperwork did not indicate the reason(s) for the length of his downgrade and increase in supervision level, and it was unclear to us why the recommendations made at the final stage of the internal complaints procedure were not followed up. We upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to address these failings.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• reconsider their decisions in light of the failings identified;
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• remind all open estate staff involved in RMT meetings and PSS3 form completion of the contents of section 8 of the RMT guidance, in relation to prisoners returned to closed conditions, and the importance of properly evidencing and recording decisions taken; and
• share this decision with complaints handling staff at the relevant prisons.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA) unreasonably restricted his contact with one of their offices, after some phone calls in which they felt Mr C was abusive and hostile towards staff. They wrote to him, explaining that he could only contact that office by email, although he could still phone their head office.

Our investigation found that although SCRA wrote to Mr C promptly to tell him about the restriction, there was no documentary evidence of his calls. There was only an internal email confirming the decision, and the recollection of a staff member. As there were no records, and as the staff member was not at work for a period afterwards, this had contributed to a delay in SCRA considering Mr C's complaint about the restriction.

SCRA are entitled to decide to restrict contact in appropriate circumstances, and we did not comment on their decision to do so in this case. In addition, we noted that phone contact was effectively restored some three months later when SCRA provided a named point of contact for Mr C. However, we were concerned that when they initially restricted Mr C's contact, they did not appear to make him aware that this decision could be reviewed or tell him the duration of the restriction, as their policy said they should. We upheld his complaint, as we considered that this, coupled with the lack of record-keeping and failure to document the reasoning behind the decision, meant that SCRA's administrative handling of the matter fell below a reasonable standard.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SCRA:

• ensure that people are advised of the review process and duration of any restriction of contact; and
• consider making notes of phone calls – particularly where restricting contact is a possibility – to ensure a clear, demonstrable audit trail.

Summary

Ms C owned a property in Edinburgh, on which work was done under a statutory notice issued by the council. She complained to the council that they had not told her how her complaint about the management of this work would be reviewed. She then complained about this to us, saying that the council's review of her complaint did not look into her concerns fully.

When we investigated the complaint, we found a gap in the council's record-keeping because they did not provide us with some relevant correspondence between Ms C and their property conservation section. We also found that they had not told her how the review process would be conducted, because they had not sent the letter containing the advice about this to her home address. The council acknowledged that Ms C had not been provided with assurances that, despite a backlog in the handling of complaints about statutory notice cases, her case was being reviewed through an approved process.

We also found that email correspondence from Ms C to the council about her concerns over the contract of works was not included in the documents that formed part of the review. However, we found evidence that the review did consider the management of the repairs and her concerns were, therefore, covered in it.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the failure in their record-keeping and their failure to write to her at her home address with advice about how the review process would be conducted; and
• apologise to Ms C for their failure to include an email in their consideration of her complaint about the management of statutory notices.

Summary

Mr C's late aunt (Ms A) had been in hospital following a stroke, and was discharged to a nursing home. Mr C complained that council social workers did not give Ms A the chance to visit the nursing home before sending her there (even though the manager had offered to let her visit), and did not offer her a choice of homes. He also said that the council failed to obtain the views of or inform Ms A's advocate and her family.

We do not normally investigate complaints about the actions of social workers, as these are normally considered by a complaints review committee (CRC), who have greater powers than we do to question the decisions of social workers. In this case, however, the council had decided that the complaint could not be considered by a CRC, so we investigated the actions of the social workers. In doing so, we took independent advice from a social work adviser with significant experience in older people’s services.

Ms A was considered to lack the capacity to make her own decisions. However, the council's assessment of her said that she had a little insight and would be pleased to be helped to seek a good nursing home placement. Despite this, Ms A was then discharged to a nursing home that she had not seen. The council told us this was because hospital staff had said that a visit to another home had unsettled her. However, there was no evidence that, before Ms A was discharged, social workers had assessed her needs, taken into account her wishes, or gathered information from a range of sources, including her independent advocate. This amounted to a failure to obtain and consider material and important information. We took the view that, at the very least, social work staff should have recorded why they felt that the views and interests of hospital staff should take precedence over those of Ms A. We would have expected the records to show why the potential upset of a visit was felt to be more significant than that of having to move to a home that she had not seen or visited.

We also found that the council had failed to give Ms A a choice of nursing homes, as they should have done in line with both national policy and their own policy on patients being discharged from hospital to a home. In addition, Mr C was recorded as Ms A's next of kin, but the council had not contacted him about Ms A’s discharge in line with principle 4 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. We found that these failings amounted to maladministration and upheld Mr C's complaint about Ms A’s discharge to the nursing home.

Mr C also complained about the way in which the council handled his complaint. They had suspended it, as they considered that he was not entitled to confidential information about Ms A, and in view of this decided that a CRC could not be held. Guidance from the Scottish Government on holding CRCs says that a complainant has no right of access to personal information held about a third party, unless the third party gives consent. As Ms A had died before Mr C made his complaint, consent could not be obtained. In view of this, we considered that it was reasonable for the council not to refer the complaint to a CRC, and noted that the decision to suspend it had in fact been approved by a CRC. However, we found that the council had delayed in dealing with Mr C's complaints. They had also incorrectly told him that no family members had been recorded as next of kin. In view of this, we also upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failings we identified;
• take steps to ensure that all staff involved in the discharge of patients from hospital are aware of and are acting in line with the relevant national and council policies;
• consider issuing guidance to staff on how they should complete one of the relevant forms when patients are discharged to a care home; and
• confirm that lessons have been learned and steps have been taken to prevent similar delays occurring when they respond to complaints about social work issues.

Summary

Mr C and Ms C complained to us about how the council handled their complaints about their neighbours' antisocial behaviour (ASB). They said that their sleep was frequently disturbed and they were concerned for the safety of their family and property. They complained that the council had failed to investigate, had not responded to complaints within their published timescales and did not keep them informed about what action was being taken. Mr C and Ms C had also kept diary sheets with details of the disturbances that had been occurring, and they said that the council had failed to act on these.

We upheld Mr C and Ms C's complaint. Our investigation found that they had complained to the council over a nineteen-month period. The council had recorded or noted several incidents, and had taken action after the first few, but had then failed to follow up later complaints appropriately. We found that the council had only issued diary sheets once, and had not followed up when they did not receive completed copies. We also found that internal communication documents showed that the council were aware that the situation was deteriorating, but they took several months to achieve a satisfactory solution. The council also failed to appropriately record and respond to each complaint within their published timescales and, in particular, did not keep Mr C and Ms C informed of the outcome of their investigations or their decisions.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that staff are fully aware of the requirements in relation to the maintenance of records of complaints, interviews and communications in relation to ASB;
• ensure that staff fulfil the requirements of the council's procedure and guidance in relation to diary sheets;
• highlight to staff the impact of not responding to complaints of ASB within their published timescales; and
• apologise to Ms C and Mr C for the failings we identified and for the time taken in bringing this complaint to us.