Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment received by his sister (Mrs A) at University Hospital Ayr. Mrs A was referred to the hospital for a respiratory opinion with a chronic cough. Mr C felt that there were delays in carrying out investigations and a lack of communication with Mrs A about her condition. Mr C also raised concerns about the board's complaints handling.

During our investigation we took independent medical advice from a consultant in respiratory medicine. We found that there were delays in Mrs A receiving follow-up respiratory appointments and that there was a failure to communicate appropriately with Mrs A about her diagnosis and treatment. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We also found that the board failed to provide a reasonable response to Mr C's complaint, therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C and Mr A for the failings identified in this report.
• Apologise to Mr C for not addressing all of his concerns in their handling of his complaint.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Patients should receive follow up clinical appointments within a reasonable timescale.
• Patients should have a clear understanding of respiratory consultants' views about their condition and the impact the resultsof tests may have on their diagnosis or treatment.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mrs C was required to attend court on two occasions as a witness, and a victim, of charges relating to assault and threatening behaviour. Mrs C was identified as a vulnerable witness, and arrangements were made for statutory special measures to support her in giving evidence, namely witness screens and a witness supporter. However, outside the courtroom the accused was able to move freely throughout the courthouse, except for the witness waiting room.

Mrs C said that she tried to stay in the witness room for her own safety, but that she had to leave at some points as there were no toilets in the room, and she was also required to leave at lunchtime, when the court building closed. Mrs C said the accused waited outside the court building on one occasion, and also approached her and intimidated her within the court building.

Mrs C first complained about her experience to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), who told her that security within the court building was the responsibility of the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service (SCTS). She then complained to the SCTS. While the SCTS said they were restricted by the physical layout of the building, they also said that they could have made other arrangements, in addition to the statutory special measures. SCTS said these arrangements could have included:

• providing a separate access route, or working with police colleagues to stagger departure times;
• providing access to a different toilet; and
• arranging for Mrs C to remain within the building during lunchtime.

SCTS said these arrangements were not provided because they were not made aware by COPFS, or Witness Support, of any particular issues of intimidation or harassment.

After investigating this matter we found that COPFS and SCTS each gave different versions of the process that should be followed for notifying SCTS of the need for additional arrangements, aside from statutory special measures. Neither organisation gave evidence that their version of the process had been agreed between the two, and we were not able to conclude that either version was correct.

We considered that it was unreasonable of both organisations that they did not have a clear and shared understanding of this process, given that they are jointly responsible for working together to support and protect vulnerable witnesses. We upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that arrangements were not put in place to avoid contact between her and the accused. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• There should be a clear process for COPFS to communicate to SCTS where they consider a witness would benefit from additional arrangements in the court building, such as arrangements to avoid contact with the accused.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). Mrs C was required to attend court on two occasions as a witness and victim of charges relating to assault and threatening behaviour. She was identified as a vulnerable witness and arrangements were made for statutory special measures to support her in giving evidence, namely witness screens and a witness supporter. However, outside the courtroom the accused was able to move freely throughout the courthouse (except for the witness waiting room).

Mrs C said she tried to stay in the witness room for her own safety, but had to leave at some point as there were no toilets in the room. She was also required to leave at lunchtime when the court building closed. Mrs C said the accused waited outside the court building on one occasion, and also approached her and intimidated her within the court building.

Mrs C complained about her experience to COPFS, who told her that security within the court building was the responsibility of the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service (SCTS). She then complained to the SCTS. The SCTS said they were restricted by the physical layout of the building, but they also said that they could have made additional arrangements (in addition to the statutory special measures). They said that this could have included:

• providing a separate access route, or working with police colleagues to stagger departure times;
• providing access to a different toilet; and
• arranging for her to remain within the building during lunchtime.

SCTS said these arrangements were not provided because they were not made aware by COPFS or Witness Support (a voluntary organisation) of any particular need. In response to our enquiries, COPFS said they had identified Mrs C’s concerns on the Vulnerable Witness Application, so the SCTS would have been aware of these. However, the SCTS said that this application only related to the statutory special measures and they were not made aware of any particular issues of intimidation or harassment.

After investigating this matter, we upheld Mrs C’s complaint. We found that COPFS and SCTS each gave different versions of the process that should be followed for notifying SCTS of the need for additional arrangements outside of statutory special measures. Neither organisation gave evidence that their version of the process had been agreed between the two and we were not able to conclude that either version was correct.

We considered it was unreasonable for both organisations to not have a clear and shared understanding of this process given that they are jointly responsible for working together to support and protect vulnerable witnesses. We noted that COPFS had now introduced a cover sheet to the Vulnerable Witness Application to include some additional information about witnesses when communicating with SCTS. However, this did not include a specific field or prompt for noting the type of concern that arose in this case.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that arrangements were not put in place to avoid contact between her and the accused, and for the delay in responding to her complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• There should be a clear process for COPFS to communicate to SCTS where they consider a witness would benefit from additional arrangements in the court building (such as arrangements to avoid contact with the accused).

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Written responses should normally be sent within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C reported missed recycling bin collections to the council. He said that he reported these to the council on more than one occasion, and that his case was closed with no subsequent collection of the bins. He raised a formal complaint and the council responded by apologising and advising that the recycling bins had since emptied and that the service had returned to schedule. Mr C said the bins had not been collected. He said that after he raised his complaint, a council employee came to his house and spoke to his mother-in-law, however they did not leave any contact details so Mr C could not follow up the visit properly. He said he received no communication from the council about when the bins would be collected. Mr C complained to us that the council unreasonably failed to collect his recycling bins, and that they failed to adequately investigate and respond to his complaints.

We found that, while the council had identified issues with bin collection in Mr C's area, they had not taken the necessary steps to ensure that bins were emptied as per their schedule. We found that the council failed on a number of occasions to empty Mr C's recycling bins and we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We found that the council did not provide Mr C with reasons for their failings and they did not provide him with a formal response at stage one of his complaint. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mr C with an apology and provide Mr C with a copy of the schedule for bin collections at his property.
• Monitor the area for a period of eight weeks to ensure bins are collected on schedule.
• Write to Mr C with a thorough explanation for their failings and advise him of the steps they have taken to address his complaints.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Take steps to ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any additional training needs.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about missed bin collections and their failure to lock the gates to the bin area at his home. The council said that they had spoken to operatives to remind them of the importance of locking the gate. The council also said that they replaced the locks and offered to provide Mr C with a key for the lock so that he could lock the gates should he find them open again, though Mr C said he did not receive this key. The council also provided him with direct contact details for a supervisor and manager.

After the council closed the complaint, the problems started to happen again. Mr C said he would have to chase away young people who were congregating in the area to drink and smoke. He complained that he could not get in touch with the supervisor and manager on their phones, that they were not responding to his emails and that the council had failed to inform him that these members of staff were on long-term leave.

Mr C tried to raise his complaint again after the gates were left unlocked again and the council responded advising that they were treating it as a service request and that he had completed their complaints process. Mr C complained to us that the council's operatives unreasonably failed to close and lock the gate to the bin area. He also complained that the council failed to properly investigate and provide a reasonable response to his complaint.

We found some failings in the council's actions. It was evident that their investigation of the complaint and subsequent actions were not effective, as the problem continued to persist. We also found that the final response from the council to Mr C's complaint was inadequate. We upheld both aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Remind staff that the gate to the bin area at Mr C's home should be locked. Regular inspections should be carried out over a period of three months to ensure that this has taken place.
• Offer Mr C a key to allow him to lock the gate if he finds it open.
• Write to Mr C to apologise for failing to fully investigate his complaint and for failing to ensure that the gate was being locked.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Wherever possible, phone messages and emails should be checked and out-of-office notifications and voicemail messages should changed advising when an employee is on leave.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C reported missed collections of his recycling bins to the council on their web portal. He said that sometimes the problem was rectified within one week, however he felt that over time, reporting the missed collections did not seem to make a difference. Mr C raised a formal complaint with the council and the council responded by apologising and advising that all refuse had been uplifted from his property. They explained the problem was due to an operative error.

Mr C requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure. The council issued their final response and they explained that the depot had been in the process of reviewing their recycling routes and they anticipated that the issues would be resolved. Mr C contacted us and told us that the council had failed to collect the recycling bins at his property on at least seven occasions over the previous six months.

We found that the council had unreasonably failed to collect Mr C's bins over a protracted period of time and we found little evidence that the council took adequate steps to prevent this from happening. We also found that they had failed to properly investigate Mr C's complaints, as their responses to his complaints did not provide reasons for the missed bin collections. We upheld both of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mr C with an apology and provide him with a copy of the schedule for bin collections at his property.
• Monitor the area for a period of eight weeks to ensure that bins are collected on schedule.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Take steps to ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any additional training needs.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C reported missed bin collections to Glasgow City Council and subsequently raised the issue as a formal complaint. In their final response to Mr C's complaint, the council apologised and advised that all refuse was collected as requested and that their collection crews had been reminded to ensure all waste is uplifted. When Mr C brought his complaint to us, he told us that the bins had not been collected, contrary to the council’s letter. Mr C reported further missed collections and the council responded advising they would pass this onto the local depot and that he had completed their complaints process. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to collect his bins and that they did not adequately investigate his complaints.

The council told us that they were experiencing a higher than normal level of requests and complaints at the time that Mr C raised his complaint. They also said they had to bring in additional workers who were unfamiliar with the routes. Despite the council investigating the complaint, we found that they continued to fail to collect Mr C's bins over a protracted period of time and failed to provide an explanation for this. We upheld both complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mr C with an apology and provide a copy of the schedule for bins collections.
• Monitor the area for a period of eight weeks and ensure the bins are collected on schedule.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Take steps to ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any additional training needs.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C moved to a new property through a mutual exchange. She complained to the council about repairs that were outstanding and the overall condition of the house. The council arranged for a building condition survey to be carried out, and it found that a number of significant structural repairs had to be carried out, including an internal wall which had to be rebuilt. Ms C had been told by the council, prior to moving in, that the wall would be rebuilt and that all outstanding repairs would be completed.

Ms C was also concerned that she was not given the opportunity to view the property before she accepted it. Ms C complained to us that the council unreasonably failed to follow correct policy and procedure regarding the mutual exchange, and that they failed to ensure the property was made available in an appropriate standard of repair. Ms C also complained that the council unreasonably delayed in carrying out the agreed repairs to the property in line with their policies.

In response to our investigation, the council told us that it was not standard procedure for a tenant to be offered the opportunity to view the property before a mutual exchange. However, they have since updated their policy to ensure that this happens. We found that even though the mutual exchange inspection by the housing officer confirmed that the property was in good condition, the property should not, in fact, have been approved for exchange. We also found that the council unreasonably delayed in completing the repairs for Ms C and that the council had acknowledged this. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for not making appropriate checks to ensure the property was up to standard and for the delay in completing repairs. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The inspection policy for mutual exchanges should ensure that properties are properly inspected by a qualified officer and provided to tenants in a structurally sound condition.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C reported concerns to the council about out of control dogs and possible breaches of a dog control notice. He was dissatisfied with the council's actions in relation to the reports and continued to communicate with them. He said that a council officer responded inappropriately in an email to him, implicitly threatening legal action. He complained to the council about these matters and the council responded saying that they considered that their actions had been reasonable. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaints to us.

We found that the council failed to reasonably consider his reports or to give him reasonable advice or information about their consideration of his reports. We found that the response to the email was inappropriate. We found that the council's handling of Mr C's complaints was not reasonable as they did not follow their complaints handling procedure and made statements that led to confusion about their powers. We upheld all of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to reasonably investigate his reports and for the inappropriate content of an email they sent to Mr C. Further apologise for failing to reasonably handle or respond to Mr C's complaints. These apologies should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• In response to every report of out of control dogs or potential breaches of dog control notices, council staff should properly advise members of the public making such reports about:
• whether reports should be made to other authorities
• what kind of evidence the council requires to take action
• what investigations the council intend to take and the reasons for those
• the progress of such considerations or investigations
• the conclusions of such considerations or investigations and as much information as possible about what further action they intend to take.
• Council staff should be aware of the council’s expected standards of communication with members of the public.
• The council’s written statements should be clear and unambiguous.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be properly acknowledged, responded to, investigated and followed up on, in line with the council’s complaints handling procedure.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C made a complaint to her housing association that her neighbour's dog was barking excessively and that this was causing her distress. Ms C advised that she was suffering ill health and was having difficulty sleeping at night due to the dog barking. Ms C raised these concerns with her housing officer but was unhappy with the level of action taken by the housing officer to reduce the impact of the anti-social behaviour.

The association worked with the neighbours to try and ensure that appropriate action was taken. The association were advised by the neighbour's family that the dog was being walked regularly and kept in the bedroom at night. The association also contacted other residents within the building to attempt to corroborate Ms C's complaints. They did not receive any responses. Ms C also became upset when the housing officer included details in a letter to a nurse involved in Ms C's care of an alleged incident where Ms C was said to have shouted and swore at her neighbour. Ms C denied that this happened and was deeply upset that the housing officer included mention of this in the letter.

Ms C complained to us about the housing association's action in response to her complaint of anti-social behaviour, and about their handling of her complaint. We obtained information from the association about their relevant policies and procedures, as well as copies of correspondence and internal case notes. We found that the action taken regarding the complaint of anti-social behaviour was reasonable as the association had spoken with the relevant parties and sought to ensure measures were put in place to reduce the barking. They also sought corroboration from other residents in the building. We did not, however, accept that the details of an alleged incident should have been included in correspondence to both Ms C and her nurse, as the allegation was unsubstantiated. We upheld this part of the complaint.

We were also critical of the complaints handling process, as the association had not identified and separated Ms C's complaint into that of anti-social behaviour, and that of service delivery. As such, the complaint response did not address the latter concerns. We upheld this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Ms C and apologise for including negative information that was not relevant in their letter to the nurse involved in her care.
• Write to Ms C and apologise for not dealing with her complaints about their service in line with their complaints policy.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff at the association should be aware of the complaints policy and know how to distinguish between neighbour complaints and complaints about services provided.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.