Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that his business unexpectedly received water bills for more than £3000 in May 2012. He had thought that the water charges were his landlord's responsibility. He contacted Business Stream but found the advice he received unhelpful. Business Stream confirmed that his premises had been identified as a gap site (a property that is receiving water services without being charged) in January 2011. A month after receiving the bills, Mr C applied for reassessment of the water charges and as a result a credit was applied to his account.

Our investigation found that there was a delay between Business Stream being made aware of the gap site and their taking action to start charging for water services. Mr C also had a responsibility to advise a licensed provider that his business was in the premises and to start paying for water services. We did, however, uphold his complaint as, although Mr C and Business Stream had a shared responsibility to make arrangements to set up a water account, we were concerned that the delay in issuing the initial bill meant that Mr C was not given an opportunity to apply for reassessment until June 2012.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• should consider crediting Mr C's account with 50 percent of the difference between the unmeasured rateable value charges and the reassessed charges between January 2011 and June 2012; and
• apologise for the fact that written notice and an explanation were not given for the number of invoices sent.

Summary

Following an unsuccessful appeal into Mr C's son's Higher Grade result, the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) wrote to his school with the reasons for the decision, which the school then shared with Mr C. The SQA later also wrote to Mr C explaining why the appeal could not be granted. A further letter to the school, however, then appeared to contradict what had previously been explained. Mr C was concerned about the stated grounds on which the appeal was refused and questioned the reasons provided and the truthfulness of their statement that, in line with national standards, bullet point answers would receive zero marks.

Our investigation found that, while it was clear that the instructions said that bullet point answers should be discouraged, there was no specific reference to using bullet points and the award of 'zero marks' in SQA materials. We saw no evidence to suggest a deliberate intention to mislead, and noted that the SQA had undertaken a thorough investigation into the matter, apologised for the error, taken action to address this and provided clear explanations in their later correspondence with Mr C. However, we upheld the complaint, noting that they had accepted that their initial explanations were insufficient and did appear to contradict what was later said to the school. This only compounded Mr C's confusion and frustrations about the decision on the appeal and could have been avoided if the SQA had ensured their correspondence was clearer and more precise in the first place.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SQA:

• remind staff, as part of their refresher training on handling complaints following the appeals process, of the importance of providing clear, accurate explanations in communications to prevent unnecessary confusion and inconsistency.
• 

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was placed on report because a mobile phone was found in his cell. Prisoners can be placed on report when an officer suspects that they have broken prison rules. Mr C complained because he said that the adjudicator (the person who decides whether he did break prison rules) did not follow the correct process at the disciplinary hearing. In particular, he said the adjudicator spoke to the witness when Mr C himself was not present. Because of that, Mr C said he was unable to ask the witness questions.

We upheld Mr C's complaint, as it was clear that the adjudicator did not follow the correct procedure. Our investigation found that prison rules and related guidance confirm that a prisoner must be given the opportunity to question witnesses. In addition, the SPS' legal services team told us that an adjudicator did not have the authority to question a witness called to a disciplinary hearing when the prisoner being charged was not present.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• revisit the circumstances of Mr C's disciplinary hearing with a view to determining whether appropriate corrective action is required; and
• remind prison staff that they cannot question a witness at a disciplinary hearing without the charged prisoner being present.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to us about the prison's handling of his requests to call witnesses to complaint hearings for four separate complaints. On each occasion, the chair of the hearing refused his requests. Seven of the eight requested witnesses were said to be unavailable to attend, and the eighth witness was recorded as not having wished to attend. Mr C complained that these reasons were not in line with the prison rule that allows the chair to refuse requests where they consider that the witness will be of no relevance or value in considering the complaint. He also said that the chair did not discuss his witness requests with him and inform him of the decision in advance of the hearings, as required under the prison rules, and that the prison delayed in responding to his complaints.

In responding to our enquiries, the prison said that the requests were considered in accordance with the prison rules. They said that, had the chair considered that the requested witnesses would have provided evidence of relevance or value, the hearings would have been rescheduled to appropriate dates when they could attend. We noted that the prison said that Mr C's requests had been assessed for relevance and value. However, we did not consider that the reasons they gave for refusing the requests reflected this, as relevance and value should have provided the sole basis for refusal, rather than reasons that are not catered for under the prison rules.

With regards to advance discussions of the requests with Mr C, and prior notification of the decision, the prison said that they had altered their process in response to Mr C's concerns. They acknowledged that there were no discussions with him on three complaints but said they have since introduced a process to ensure that a manager discusses witness requests with prisoners and issues a decision in advance of complaint hearings. We noted that an advance discussion did take place on the fourth complaint.

The prison also said that they responded within the timescales in the prison rules. We noted that there was a slight discrepancy between the date of submission on Mr C's complaint forms and the date the prison said they received the complaints. This seemed to account for the difference in opinion as to whether the complaints were responded to in time. However, even if timed from the date of submission recorded on the forms, we noted that we were only talking of delays of one or two days. We did not consider this unreasonably excessive and were not critical of the prison in this regard. However, we considered their handling of Mr C's witness requests to have been unreasonable and, on that basis, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• brief staff members who act as complaints commitee chair on the terms of the relevant prison rule, ensuring that any decision to refuse a prisoner's request to call witnesses is taken and communicated to the prisoner in accordance with this rule; and
• apologise to Mr C for the identified failings.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had not amended an intelligence report (adverse information obtained by the Scottish Prison Service that affects an individual prisoner) on him to accurately reflect the outcome of suspected drug use, and that the prison had not passed an accurate version of the report to the Parole Board for Scotland (PBS). He also complained that he was ignored for six weeks after he made a verbal request to speak to the early release liaison officer. Mr C said he had no idea who he should approach if he needed to discuss a parole matter. In addition, Mr C complained about how his complaint had been handled by the prison.

Our investigation found that the prison did send amended information to the PBS, but the wording of the information was confusing in relation to whether Mr C was suspected of using drugs. This was not in line with what the prison said would be done in their response to Mr C's complaint, or with relevant guidance on dealing with the PBS. We also found that the prison did not have an early release liaison officer for prisoners such as Mr C, and there was no evidence to confirm how and when he was told this, and no records of discussions with him about related matters. We were of the view that, in the specific circumstances, there should be records of this. Finally, we found that the prison failed to deal with Mr C's complaint reasonably, as they did not address one of the main points in it.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for unreasonably failing to adequately update an intelligence report about him;
• take immediate steps to update and clarify the position with the PBS;
• confirm the name of the staff member Mr C should discuss the PBS letter with, and with whom he should discuss sentence management concerns;
• apologise to Mr C for the inadequate handling of his complaint; and
• ensure the relevant prison staff receive training on handling complaints, in light of this decision.

Summary

After damaging her car tyres on a pothole in the road, Mrs C submitted a claim to the council's road services department. She was told that it would be investigated and passed to the council's insurers, who would contact her. As she heard nothing Mrs C asked for an update and was advised there was a backlog. She complained to the council about the time it was taking to process her claim, highlighting that their published guidelines said that they would pass claims to their insurers within 21 days. The council apologised for the delay, and said the claim had been passed to the insurers.

Mrs C was then told a few days later that her claim had been forwarded to the council's insurance service for onward submission to their insurers. Mrs C complained to the council that this contradicted what she had previously been told, and she complained again about the delay. The council said that the delays were due to staff absence and pressure of work, but that there was no evidence that she had been lied to about her claim. Mrs C remained unhappy and complained to us about the delays in processing her claim and handling her complaint, and about the council's communications.

We upheld all of Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that it took the council more than three times longer than their published timescales to process the claim to the point of passing it to their insurers. As the council had acknowledged, although it was due to numbers and pressure of work, this was unacceptable. We noted, however, that the council are now processing claims normally within timescales. We also found that the council exceeded their own complaints handling timescales by a few days, which appeared to be due to how information was logged on their complaints system.

Finally we found it unacceptable that the council did not communicate with Mrs C between receiving the claim and her contact to find out what was happening, especially in light of their published timescales for passing claims to their insurers. We also found that the council's communications, while later clarified, did at first lead to confusion about what stage the claim was at.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise that they did not respond to Mrs C's complaint within their published timescales;
• consider reviewing what steps they might take to ensure timelines for complaints handling are met;
• apologise for not updating Mrs C much earlier about the delays with her claim, and for the lack of clarity in some of their communications; and
• consider reviewing what steps they might take to ensure claimants are kept updated and that clear explanations are provided.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mrs A about tenancy charges raised by the council when Mrs A terminated her former tenancy and moved to a new house. There was no pre-termination inspection but after Mrs A left, the council arranged for removal and re-instatement works to take away fittings etc. Mrs A was told that she would have to pay for these, and was given an estimate of £620 excluding VAT. Mrs A replied saying that she considered the works were excessive and disputed several of the items listed. She received no response, and the council's next contact was more than six months later when she received an invoice for £867.11. She asked for a more detailed breakdown, then complained to the council about the charges.

We upheld Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council failed to inspect Mrs A's former home before she left it and that their position at the time on when or whether such inspections should be carried out was inconsistent. We also found that there was unreasonable delay in sending Mrs A the invoice for repairs and that the council had not explained why the final invoice figure exceeded the estimate by so much. We also found that they failed to deal with correspondence according to their published processes and procedures.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs A for their failings in handling the complaint; and
• reconsider, in the light of the information in our decision notice, whether there are grounds to reduce the sum claimed in the invoice.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council took an unreasonable length of time to respond to his complaints and did not adequately investigate and respond to his concerns about the actions of a school with regard to the alleged bullying of his son. He said that he was very concerned about his son's welfare as a result of the alleged incidents.

We upheld his complaints, as our investigation found that although the council apologised and gave various reasons for delays, the complaints process took an unacceptably long time to complete. It was only after we contacted them that the council eventually gave a final response, nearly seven months after Mr C first complained. Even then, it did not address all the issues and was incomplete, although they later gave him additional information.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the unreasonable time taken to manage the entire process of responding to Mr C's complaints;
• consider reviewing what steps they might take to ensure timelines for complaints handling are met and appropriate cases are given priority;
• apologise for not adequately investigating and responding to Mr C's concerns;
• share the findings of our investigation with appropriate staff; and
• consider how to ensure school staff are fully aware of the anti-bullying strategy and the investigation process for allegations of bullying.

Summary

Mr C raised his concern about the housing association's handling of his complaint about antisocial behaviour by a neighbour. He complained that the association had failed to follow their policies and procedures for dealing with antisocial behaviour.

We upheld the complaint as during our investigation we found that the association had considered the matter to be a neighbour dispute, and while they had been in contact with Mr C in response to his complaint they had failed initially to fully investigate his concerns in line with their policy. They had subsequently investigated the complaint appropriately, and had suggested organising a meeting with the two parties in an effort to resolve the dispute.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• remind staff of the need to comply with the association's antisocial behaviour policies; and
• consider whether any lessons can be learnt from the handling of this case.

Summary

Mrs C had a history of myeloma (a type of cancer arising from plasma cells found in the bone marrow). She began to suffer from sickness and diarrhoea and arrangements were made for her to have a gastroscopy (a medical procedure during which a thin, flexible tube called an endoscope is used to look inside the stomach) and a colonoscopy (an examination of the lining of the bowel using a long flexible tube-like camera). Before these could be done, Mrs C's condition deteriorated and she had to attend a hospital accident and emergency department (A&E). She was told that her problems could be related to her myeloma. Blood tests and an x-ray were arranged and steps were taken to hydrate her (give her more fluids).

Mrs C had the gastroscopy two days later and a hiatus hernia (a protrusion of part of the stomach) was discovered which could be controlled by medication. The colonoscopy, however, could not take place as Mrs C was feeling unwell. She attended A&E again a few days later, as her legs were swollen, and was admitted to hospital. Five days later, the hospital contacted her husband (Mr C) to tell him that doctors had found a tumour in Mrs C's bowel and that it had ruptured. Mrs C died the following week.

Mr C complained that staff failed to carry out appropriate investigations in order to arrive at an accurate diagnosis for his wife. We found that there were some failures in the care and treatment provided. In particular, there was a failure to adequately assess some of Mrs C's symptoms; to perform examinations; and to consider her blood tests in sufficient detail. Although there were only a few days for a diagnosis to be made, we found that the hospital had missed opportunities. They initially considered that she might have infectious diarrhoea, possible clostridium difficile (a type of bacterial infection that can affect the digestive system) or that there might be a cardiac cause. These were excluded and doctors concluded that it was likely she had a new acute illness. However, the blood test results did not fit with diagnosis of new acute illness, but suggested a significant period of illness, iron deficiency and malnutrition. Mrs C was already having her bowel investigated for an alternative diagnosis of iron deficiency anaemia, which was unrelated to her myeloma. We found that a more balanced view of Mrs C's symptoms, clinical signs, and blood results would have considered chronic bowel disease, including malignancy, at least as likely as acute diarrhoea and vomiting caused by infection. We found that the level of care provided to Mrs C was below acceptable standards.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• consider holding a significant event analysis in order to reflect and learn from this case; and
• issue a written apology to Mr C for their failure to adequately examine Mrs C and assess her symptoms and blood tests and for the delay in making an accurate diagnosis.