Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had not followed their policy and procedures in dealing with his complaints that another student had bullied him, and that the university had failed to protect him. He also said that the university had not observed their 'dignity and respect' policy in dealing with his complaints and had not considered his mental wellbeing or provided the support he needed.

Our investigation found it unreasonable that the university did not respond appropriately to Mr C’s complaints. They told us that they had not replied because they considered the matter to be a personal one that was outwith their area of responsibility. We also found that they did not respond when Mr C repeatedly told them that he was attending counselling, that he was not coping, and that he was experiencing detrimental effects of his prescribed medication. We found this unreasonable too, and upheld Mr C's complaints. We also found that the university had not tried to offer early mediation, as they should have done, and had not considered how to deal with the information Mr C gave them, and its potential impact.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• apologise for not addressing the initial complaint of bullying;
• remind staff of the importance of early intervention through mediation in cases of harassment and bullying;
• consider whether the recommendation they made regarding placement could have implications for discriminatory practice;
• apologise for failing to follow their policies and procedures and to take reasonable measures to address additional support needs and mental health wellbeing;
• make relevant staff aware of our decision letter and its findings; and
• consider arranging appropriate training for all staff on the mental health and wellbeing policy.

Summary

Mr C's daughter was not making the required progress on her college course and was transferred to part-time attendance. Mr C complained that the college had not taken action to resolve the academic difficulties she was having. The college investigated and did not uphold his complaint. Mr C considered that the college had not dealt adequately with his complaint when the college decided that his daughter had not made successful progress on part-time attendance to continue her studies. He said that when he asked how to appeal this, he was given conflicting information and told that he had exhausted the internal procedures.

We upheld Mr C's complaint, as our investigation found that, although the college had carried out a proportionate investigation, made a reasonable decision about his daughter's progress, and had tried to support her in her studies, they had not handled his complaint well. Neither had they clearly communicated with him in terms of the complaints procedure and other information.

Recommendations

We recommended that the college:

• apologise to Mr C for not adequately handling his complaint; and
• share our decision letter with relevant staff.

Summary

Ms C complained about a delay in Business Stream issuing their first invoice. Although Ms C’s company had occupied the property for several years, Business Stream issued their first invoice in May 2013, and backdated it to October 2010.

When the non-domestic water industry was opened up to competition in April 2008, Scottish Water became the wholesaler and businesses were required to purchase their water through licensed providers. Business Stream are the default licensed provider and Scottish Water passed Ms C’s details to them in October 2010. However, Business Stream did not identify Ms C as the occupant until an internal audit of April 2013, despite their representative having visited the site in December 2012. The representative had logged the site as being vacant.

We noted that Ms C may not have known that Business Stream were the default provider before they contacted her. However, we also considered the responsibilities on both parties. This is because Business Stream have a legal duty to collect water charges - which they can legally backdate for up to five years - and so their delay had to be weighed up against the fact that Ms C could have contacted them.

We upheld Ms C's complaint as we found that the evidence did not indicate that Business Stream had taken any significant steps in relation to her premises, despite Scottish Water giving them her details in October 2010. Although the evidence indicated that they acted promptly to identify and send their invoice to Ms C after their 2013 audit, we considered that, on balance, they took an unreasonable length of time to issue a first invoice.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Ms C for the delay in issuing their initial invoice; and
• confirm that steps will be taken to ensure that, when their staff contact customers who are yet to be invoiced, they explain that invoices will be backdated (where relevant).

Summary

Mr C complained that in March 2012 his business unexpectedly received water bills for more than £2,000. He had understood that the business's water usage was paid for through his service contract with the landlord. However, Business Stream confirmed that in March 2011 his premises had been identified as a gap site (a site that has never been billed for water). Mr C applied for reassessment of his business's water charges so that they would be estimated based on the number of staff and facilities in the building, rather than its rateable value. His bills then reduced significantly, but he complained that Business Stream refused to backdate the reassessed rate. He felt that this should be done, saying that Business Stream's failure to contact him between March 2011 and March 2012 prevented him from applying for reassessment earlier.

We found that there had been a delay of around seven months before Mr C's premises were confirmed as a gap site. At that stage, Scottish Water should have issued a letter to advise the occupant that a water account should be set up with a licensed provider so that water services could be paid for. Although we were told that a letter was sent to the premises, we were provided with no clear evidence of this. We noted that the building had multiple occupants and that the letter may not have reached Mr C's business.

There was also a significant delay between Business Stream being made aware of the gap site and their taking action to start charging for water services. Mr C, however, also had a responsibility to advise a licensed provider that his business was in the premises and to commence paying for water services, but had made no such contact. Although we concluded that Mr C and Business Stream had a shared responsibility to make arrangements to set up a water account, we recognised that Mr C had clearly been prevented from applying for reassessment because of Business Stream's delay. During our investigation, Business Stream accepted this and offered Mr C an ex-gratia credit to his account, which we considered to be reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay in setting up his account and notifying him of the water charges accrued by his business.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison that they had failed to respond to an earlier complaint that he had submitted. The prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) upheld this complaint, and recommended that his original complaint should be logged and responded to in line with their procedure. Mr C then complained to us when the prison had still not responded.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) told us that when Mr C's complaint paperwork was returned to the administration office after the ICC hearing, the database was not updated to record the ICC recommendation. This meant that the relevant officer was unaware the recommendation had been made. The SPS assured us that the system in place at the prison for logging and responding to complaints was robust, and that the failure to deal with Mr C's complaint was because of administrative error. They said the staff involved had been reminded of the importance of logging complaints to ensure they could be tracked and responded to in line with the complaints procedure.

Since complaining to us, Mr C has now received a response to his original complaint. However, we upheld his complaint to us because the prison did not log or respond to his original complaint within the relevant timescale, and because they also failed to action the ICC's recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to action the ICC's recommendation.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was placed on report for having items in his pocket that he was not supposed to have. One of the items was a tablet that a nurse suspected was Mr C's prescribed medication. The prison tested it and confirmed that it was Mr C's medication. He was charged and punished at a disciplinary hearing. He said that he was told he could have the tablet independently tested, but was then told that the whole tablet was used in the testing process. Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately failed to retain the tablet so that he could have it tested.

In line with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s drug testing policy, the prison should have completed a drug testing recording sheet and prepared a report for Mr C's disciplinary hearing. We asked to see that paperwork, but the SPS told us it was not available. They told us the approved drug testing kit was used and the result of the test was reported verbally to the adjudicator of the hearing. We asked them to confirm that prisoners were entitled to have substances that had given a positive result tested independently, and the SPS confirmed they were entitled to do that.

Mr C was denied the opportunity to have the tablet tested independently. The prison did not complete the required paperwork or prepare a report for the adjudicator. Because of that, we were unable to determine whether the prison correctly followed the process, and we upheld Mr C's complaint.

In addition, we noted that we had previously investigated a similar complaint (case number 201203443) in which we identified the same failings. At that time, we asked the SPS to remind all prison establishments of the obligation to follow the requirements of the drug testing policy, and they issued an action notice to all prisons in February 2013. In our decision on Mr C's complaint, we noted our disappointment that the same failing occurred in this case and made a recommendation relating to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• review the circumstances of Mr C's case to decide whether appropriate corrective action should be taken;
• apologise to Mr C for not giving him the opportunity to have the tablet independently tested; and
• remind all prison establishments again of the obligation to follow the requirements of the presumptive drug testing policy.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, had his cell searched and items of property removed. He was told an investigation would take place but a few weeks later, Mr C was told the items had been destroyed. Mr C complained that the prison had inappropriately removed and destroyed property from his cell. He also complained that the prison failed to appropriately investigate the matter.

The prison told us they suspected Mr C was running an illegal 'shop' by obtaining items in an unauthorised way, which was why his cell was searched. They said the items removed were considered to be excessive for Mr C’s own use, and were thought to be from illegal lending, which backed up their suspicions. The prison rules confirm that the prison are entitled to search a prisoner’s cell and remove any items of unauthorised property. They are also allowed to destroy unauthorised or prohibited items. However, the prison gave us a copy of the process that should be followed by staff when removing items from a cell. This confirmed that staff should have kept a record of the items of property removed, which did not happen in Mr C’s case. Because they did not do this, Mr C was unable to prove that items may have belonged to him. In addition, the prison were unable to provide any evidence to show us that they had investigated whether the items removed actually belonged to him. It was clear the prison were allowed to remove the items from Mr C’s cell but they were only entitled to destroy unauthorised property. Mr C maintains the property was authorised but the prison disagreed. Because the prison failed to follow the correct process and retain a record of the items removed, there was no way to determine whether the items destroyed were authorised and we upheld Mr C’s complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• ensure prison staff are aware of the procedure that should be followed when searching a prisoner's cell; and
• remind prison staff of the requirement to obtain a record of items removed from a prisoner's cell following a search.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, progressed to the national top end (NTE) in January 2012. This is a less secure prison facility, to which prisoners can progress before moving to open prison conditions. The risk management team (RMT) there were concerned that Mr C had not been assessed for offence-related programme work prior to his progression. They decided he should be assessed before they made any decisions about his progression. The assessment identified that he should participate in outstanding programme work and because of this, he was returned to a secure prison to complete it. Mr C complained about being returned to a secure prison because he said the RMT there had approved his progression. He could not understand why he was now being asked to participate in further programme work when he had been told that he had completed everything he was required to. Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to manage his progression to the NTE appropriately. He also said the SPS’ handling of his complaints was unreasonable.

The SPS introduced their generic assessment process at the end of March 2011. Prisons across Scotland were told they should use that process to assess individual prisoners’ needs for suitable programmes. We asked the SPS whether Mr C was assessed by the secure prison before he progressed to the NTE. They said he was not, because the process was not in place there. The evidence we saw confirmed that Mr C should have been assessed and given the opportunity to complete identified programmes before he was progressed to less secure conditions. Because of that, we upheld his complaint.

We also upheld Mr C’s complaint about the SPS’ handling of his complaints. He submitted a number of complaints to the secure prison, raising the same concerns about his progression and asking for explanations about what had happened. The evidence we saw suggested that the prison only responded to a couple of Mr C’s complaints, and did not adequately address the issues he raised. They should have carefully investigated these issues and provided a full and detailed response. Had they done so, this might have prevented Mr C from having to refer his complaint to us.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified with the prison's handling of his sentence management; and
• apologise to Mr C for failing to adequately address the complaints he raised about his progression.

Summary

Ms C complained that in documents held by the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA) she was referred to as male, after they had agreed to refer to her as female. She described this reference as a hate incident. Ms C also complained that the SCRA failed to follow their procedures in dealing with her complaint about this.

We looked at the documents that Ms C and the SCRA provided, and found that male pronouns had been used in a note on the file. The SCRA had agreed to refer to Miss C as female and, in our view, once that agreement was made all subsequent references to her should have been female.

We also found that the SCRA investigating officer did not contact Ms C to agree her complaint and what she was looking for as a result of it, and did not keep a record of the investigation, as required by their complaints handling procedure. Neither was it clear, from their responses to Ms C'’s complaint and to our enquiry, how they had learned from her complaint and how SCRA staff would benefit from that learning. These are also requirements of their complaints handling procedure. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SCRA:

• ensure SCRA staff are made aware of the need to refer to transgender customers appropriately and consistently;
• remind SCRA staff of the need to follow the complaints handling procedure in dealing with complainants;
• remind SCRA staff to keep records of complaint investigations; and
• inform the Ombudsman of what learning was taken from the investigation into this complaint, and how it has been or will be incorporated into training and guidance for staff.

Summary

When Mr C was sent to prison, he terminated his council tenancy and gave the council a mandate to dispose of his personal property to reduce an amount of money that he owed them. The council put a number of items up for sale in a local auction house, and put the net proceeds towards Mr C’s rent arrears, but he still owed council tax. After Mr C was released from prison, he returned to the area and shortly afterwards the council sent him a statement of his council tax arrears. Mr C then made an information request about the disposal of his property. He had compiled an inventory from memory and believed that his property had been sold for an eighth of its value. After the council responded to his information request he complained to them, then to us, that the process used in disposing of his property was inappropriate.

We found that the council had disposed of Mr C’s property before the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and related regulations came into effect. As he terminated the tenancy and did not abandon it, the council had not needed to compile an inventory of his belongings. Our investigation also found that the terms of Mr C’s mandate to the council were wide ranging and unequivocal. However, we upheld his complaint, as we took the view that they should have written to him in prison to account for the discharge of his mandate, advised him of the proceeds of the sale and told him that these had not been enough to clear his debts.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for their failure to write to him after the disposal of his property and inform him of the consequences for his indebtedness.