Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) had produced guidelines for allocating bursary funding which were discriminatory. Mr C received an occupational pension following early retirement due to ill health and believed this should be considered as a disability benefit and not included in the calculation of his household income. Mr C said he believed the SFC had not drafted their bursary guidelines in keeping with the relevant equality legislation. Mr C also complained that his complaint to the SFC had not been properly handled.

The SFC stated that different areas of income were taken into account in the guidance on student support assessments. They had provided a detailed explanation of the various types of income and the way they were assessed. The SFC said they had not initially considered Mr C's correspondence as a complaint, but they accepted this could have been handled more proactively and they had taken steps to address this.

We took independent advice from an equalities adviser. The adviser said that the SFC had fulfilled their obligation under equalities legislation to consider the impact of their bursary policy and guidelines on individuals who were in receipt of occupational pensions. In light of this, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We upheld Mr C's complaint about the way SFC had dealt with his complaint. However, the SFC had provided evidence that they had taken proportionate and robust steps to address this failing, so we did not make any recommendations about their complaints process, though we did ask them to apologise to Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failure to respond appropriately to the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a number of actions of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). Most were beyond our jurisdiction but Mr C also complained about how COPFS had responded to his complaint. We considered that, in their response, COPFS had addressed the issues Mr C complained of, gave him accurate information and reached views that, though Mr C disagreed with, they had discretion to reach. Consequently, we did not uphold his complaint about COPFS' complaints handling.

Summary

Mr C's daughter appealed to the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) about her results in two subjects. Her appeals were not upheld. Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter to the SQA about the procedures they had followed and that they had not examined apparent administrative errors in the recording of her marks. The SQA investigated and responded to additional points of clarification that Mr C asked for, but he did not think their responses were clear or addressed his concerns. He also asked about the papers for one of her subjects which appeared to be missing. The SQA admitted they were unable to trace the documents and outlined the steps they would take to ensure there would be no recurrence.

From our investigation, we were satisfied that the SQA provided reasonable responses to Mr C's representations. The responses included explaining their quality assurance processes, confirming that the original marking of the examinations had been to the national standard, confirming that following the appeal they were satisfied the marks awarded were correct and that there had been no mistakes in the marking of the examinations. They had also responded to Mr C's concerns about the loss of documents and had explained the action taken to improve their processes.

Summary

Mr C sat an exam that was provided by an awarding body regulated by SQA Accreditation (part of the Scottish Qualifications Authority that regulates awarding bodies and accredits their qualifications). There was a problem with the exam and because of this all the marks, including Mr C's, were voided. Mr C complained to SQA Accreditation about how the awarding body dealt with his complaint. As Mr C was not happy with SQA Accreditation's response, he complained to us.

We found that it was appropriate for SQA Accreditation to have considered the awarding body's handling of the matter by referring to the most recent SQA Accreditation Regulatory Principles. However, we found that SQA Accreditation's complaints procedure did not comply with the model complaints handling procedure (CHP) that organisations under our jurisdiction must follow. We also found that SQA Accreditation did not respond to each agreed point of Mr C's complaint separately. It would have been good practice to explain to Mr C what SQA Accreditation could or could not look at, answer each of the specific points of complaint that were agreed with him, and set out the key evidence on which their conclusions were based. In addition, there were insufficient records of phone calls made during SQA Accreditation's handling of Mr C's complaint, and they did not advise Mr C clearly about how to take his complaint further. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SQA:

• provide us with a response to the outstanding points of Mr C's complaint;
• share the findings of our investigation with staff, to learn from the failings identified in the handling of Mr C's complaint; and
• ensure that SQA Accreditation's complaints procedure is compliant with the model CHP.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) failed to engage with him and his representative in respect of bird collision avoidance rates for wind turbines. He was concerned that SNH would not provide him with the specific figures he needed to allow him to submit an application for turbines and he was also unhappy with the way they dealt with his complaint.

We found that there was a long period where SNH had failed to respond to Mr C's representative, which had been acknowledged by SNH earlier, and we upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, we did not uphold his concerns about the figures he needed as we concluded that, although SNH are committed to continually updating the figures they publish, they are not required to do so specifically at the request of a developer. We also noted that they had agreed to produce updated figures for the species Mr C was interested in (which they have now done). We also found that SNH had dealt with Mr C's complaint in line with their procedures.

Summary

Mr C had complained to a local authority about their services. When they did not investigate his complaint he asked a councillor to review the matter. The councillor felt that this would go beyond his remit and declined to become involved. Mr C complained about the councillor to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland (the commissioner). Mr C alleged that the councillor's code of conduct had been breached. The commissioner investigated Mr C's complaint and concluded that there had been no breach. Mr C subsequently complained to us that the commissioner had investigated a different complaint to the one he had raised, had accepted evidence that was not relevant to his complaint and had taken an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the code of conduct.

We found that, whilst the commissioner's summary of Mr C's complaint was different to the point he had raised, his concerns were addressed fully in the commissioner's decision. We were satisfied that the commissioner reached his decision having followed guidance as to how the code of conduct should be interpreted and that he had carried out the investigation reasonably.

Summary

Mr C, who is an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A) about development on a site close to his home. Mr A was the former owner of the site and still held licenses from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in relation to it. Mr A complained that works on the site were affecting his private water supply but that SEPA had done little to prevent this. He also complained that when planning applications were made to the local council, SEPA did not make a reasonable response and had understated information. Furthermore, he said that they did not make a reasonable response to his concerns about the licenses he held.

We investigated the complaint and found that SEPA had looked into Mr A's concerns but found no evidence to suggest that his water supply had been detrimentally affected. The developer had been required to apply for a license and submit data and testing information. Mr A was given appropriate advice. We also found that SEPA had made comments on the planning applications and that while Mr A would have preferred them to have made objections, this was a matter for their discretion based on their officers' professional opinion. Accordingly, these complaints were not upheld. However, we found that SEPA had unduly delayed in responding to Mr A's queries about his licenses and for this reason upheld this part of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a decision Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) had made about the steps he could take to control animals on his land. His concern was that animals were causing damage and, while SNH permitted him to cull a specific number of them, he was unhappy that they restricted this number. Mr C felt SNH had been more concerned about being seen to have taken a balanced approach than by making an evidence-based decision (SNH had explained to Mr C that they have a duty to take a balanced approach to such matters).

We considered whether there was maladministration in SNH's decision-making process. Their guidance explained that they had to take a balanced approach and pointed to the various factors they were to consider. Although Mr C felt they had not taken specific concerns into account, SNH's guidance explained that it was not for SNH to be experts in the areas he had pointed to. As a result, the evidence showed that they had considered the relevant factors in reaching their position and there was fundamental disagreement with Mr C about their decision.

While we recognised that this was an important matter for Mr C, and that he was fully entitled to disagree with SNH, we considered the evidence indicated that they had made a decision they were entitled to have made. As there was no maladministration, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) had failed to investigate his complaint that his neighbour's septic tank was discharging unsafely into a roadside ditch and that it was, on occasion, flooding his back garden. Mr C said his submission to SEPA had been ignored and SEPA had refused to test the discharge. Mr C also complained that SEPA could not show that the consent to discharge granted in 1968 was being properly adhered to.

SEPA said their officers had investigated Mr C's complaint in line with their procedures, which allowed officers to take discretionary decisions on the extent of any investigation carried out. The site had been visited three times, with no evidence found by officers to justify further testing. Although the issues around the conditions attached to the consent to discharge had not been raised by Mr C initially, SEPA did not agree the conditions were being breached and said there was no evidence to that effect.

We found that SEPA had followed their procedures correctly in investigating the complaint. The procedures allowed their officers to exercise their professional judgement, which they had done in a reasonable fashion and which they had extensively documented at the time. We did not find they had failed to respond to Mr C's complaints and, although we accepted that he did not agree with their conclusions, this was not sufficient to constitute maladministration.

Summary

Mr C complained that maps used by Forestry Commission Scotland (the commission) in a consultation included inaccurate information about his land. The commission investigated, concluded that the maps were inaccurate, provided Mr C and statutory consultees with accurate maps, and updated the documents relating to the consultation on their website. Mr C remained dissatisfied and brought his complaints to us. We decided that the commission's actions had not been unreasonable and did not uphold his complaints.