Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Mr C complained that Audit Scotland failed to respond to an email asking whether they were able to investigate a complaint about a third party organisation. As no response was received to this email Mr C sought a response from Audit Scotland and, following investigation, they responded to him almost ten months later. Mr C complained that Audit Scotland unreasonably delayed responding to his earlier email, that they unreasonably shared details of his complaint with the third party organisation and that the quality of the investigation of his complaint was poor.

Audit Scotland acknowledged, and apologised to Mr C for the delay in responding to, his complaint. They upheld this element of his complaint. They did not uphold the elements relating to a potential breach of his confidentiality and failures in their investigation of his complaint. As Mr C remained unhappy, he complained to us.

We noted the steps taken by Audit Scotland prior to Mr C coming to us. We also noted that Mr C had not given his permission for them to pass his details to the third party organisation, nor had they demonstrated that Mr C had made his complaint known to the third party organisation himself. As this was, in our view, a breach of their own procedures, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Audit Scotland:

• apologise to Mr C for making his identity known to the third party agency without his permission and without evidence that he had made his identity publicly known; and
• apologise to Mr C for stating the outcomes he was seeking were outwith their complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Accountant of Court had not properly supervised a judicial factor. A judicial factor is appointed when money and assets need to be protected to ensure that debtors can, if possible, be paid. One had been appointed in relation to a firm of solicitors that had undertaken work relating to the executry of Mr C's late mother. Before this work was completed the solicitors had taken interim fees and had these assessed, and they had also ceased trading. The final work was transferred to another firm and a judicial factor was appointed to ensure debts were paid whenever possible. Mr C told us he was unhappy that when he complained about the amount of fees charged, the judicial factor referred this to an Auditor of Court for the fee to be 'taxed'. This is a formal process and the decision (called taxation) is normally binding. Mr C said that the fees could simply have been changed without any need for this process, and that the decision was based on an assumption that there were five meetings with the solicitors when there had only been two. He also complained to the Law Society (who regulate the work of solicitors) who accepted that the recording of three meetings had been dishonest. Mr C said that in light of the Law Society's findings the judicial factor had wrongly reported that there was no evidence of dishonesty.

The judicial factor is not within our jurisdiction, neither are solicitors. Our role was limited to assessing whether the Accountant of Court had correctly supervised the judicial factor. Before we could say that they had failed to do so, we would need to find that they had been wrong to rely on the decisions of the judicial factor, either because these were clearly unreasonable or there was a material error. We found that there was no evidence that the taxation calculation included five meetings. The decision had not relied on the solicitors' files, which were incomplete. We also found that, as Mr C alleged dishonesty in the fee calculation, the referral to someone independent was appropriate and that there was no need to investigate the taking of the interim fee. In the circumstances, there was no evidence that the Accountant of Court had not acted reasonably within their discretion when supervising the judicial factor and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Forestry Commission Scotland (the Commmission) had not carried out our recommendations on a previous complaint he made about the humane dispatch of deer (case 201103288). He also said that they had not adequately explained and clarified their policy and that he believed the response he received when he raised matters with them was inadequate and dismissive.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the commission had implemented our recommendations appropriately and reasonably. Although Mr C continued to disagree with their policy on the humane dispatch of deer this was a discretionary decision for the Commission, and one that we had already considered in our previous investigation. In his most recent complaint to them, Mr C had continued to raise matters that we had already investigated, and so they had made it clear in their letter to him that they did not intend to continue to correspond on these matters. They had appropriately and reasonably addressed the new issues he raised.

Summary

Miss C complained about the way COPFS handled her complaint, which concerned the death of a relative. Miss C said the handling of her complaint was very poor and took an unreasonably long time, and there was a lack of respect and compassion towards her as a bereaved relative in the written response to her complaint by COPFS. Our jurisdiction in complaints about COPFS is very limited, and we could look only at whether they acted in line with their complaints procedure.

We found that Miss C raised a number of issues in her complaint to COPFS and, in their letter, COPFS provided a response to those issues. From an administrative point of view this showed there was a reasonable level of investigation into, and response to, Miss C's complaint. We were in no doubt that their response would have been difficult to read, given the distressing subject matter dealt with in the letter. However, we concluded that the letter was not lacking in respect or compassion; rather, it was empathetic and tried to deal with a difficult subject sensitively.

In terms of the time taken to deal with Miss C's complaint, it took considerably longer than the 20 working days allowed for in the COPFS complaints procedure; it was in the region of 85 working days. COPFS explained why it took this length of time, and the explanation appeared to be reasonable. However, COPFS failed to update Miss C every 20 working days, as required by their complaints procedure. Miss C should have had at least three, if not four updates. This was particularly important given the impact on Miss C of her relative's death and subsequent events. Therefore, on this specific point, we upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that COPFS:

• confirm to us what measures they have in place to ensure that complainants are given progress updates in line with their complaints and feedback policy.

Summary

Miss C was the victim of a road accident in 2009. Charges were brought in relation to the accident and Miss C was cited to appear in court. Due to an error by the Procurator Fiscal in court in August 2010 the case was not called, and proceedings could not be re-raised because of the time that had elapsed. Miss C made enquiries about the progress of the case and, for the next five months, was advised that it was being rescheduled. At the end of January 2011, however, she was advised that the case had ended the previous August. Miss C complained to COPFS about this and received a final response in April 2013. She was dissatisfied with the response and raised her complaints with us.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaint that COPFS had not reasonably advised her of the progress of the case as there is no requirement for them to do this, and she was advised that she did not need to attend court in August 2010, although she was given incorrect information about the reason for this. We did, however, uphold her complaints that COPFS did not reasonably advise her of the conclusion of the case, provided inaccurate information to her between August 2010 and January 2011 and did not respond reasonably to her enquiries and complaints from January 2011 onwards.

Recommendations

We recommended that COPFS:

• provide us with evidence that all staff were reminded about the provision of appropriate and accurate information to those involved in cases, and that notes of all phone conversations are now added to case records so it is possible to ascertain who provided information to enquirers;
• provide us with evidence of how their move to scanning correspondence has improved their handling of general correspondence; and
• consider, as a tangible expression of regret in exceptional circumstances, making a small payment to Miss C in recognition of the unnecessary costs, inconvenience and upset caused by their administrative errors.

Summary

Mr C complained that COPFS failed to send a production release note to the police. This would allow Mr C to collect his property, which was used as evidence in a court case, from the police. Our jurisdiction is very limited in complaints about COPFS. In this case, we looked at whether or not COPFS followed the proper procedure, or considered relevant information in dealing with the administrative process of returning property to Mr C.

We found there was a delay in this matter being resolved. COPFS explained how this happened, and the action they took to address this problem. They also apologised to Mr C. COPFS confirmed to Mr C, and to us, that a release note was sent to the police. We were satisfied that COPFS sent a release note to the police and, therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

When the local planning authority refused Mr C's application for planning consent, he appealed the decision. He complained to us that in handling his appeal, the inquiry reporter (the person responsible for hearing the appeal) failed to confine his reporting to matters relevant to the status of the application (which was for planning consent in principle). Mr C also complained that the reporter used subjective opinions to make his decision.

Our investigation found no evidence from the appeal, or the responses the department gave Mr C when he complained, that the reporter had failed to take relevant matters such as the legislation and development plan policy into consideration. Nor did we find evidence that the reporter was in any doubt that this was an appeal for planning consent in principle, not detailed consent. Finally, we found no evidence that the reporter used his own criteria. We found that the comments Mr C considered subjective were where the reporter expressed an opinion, which he was entitled to do as long as he was taking account of the relevant policy, legislation and guidance. This was a professional decision that the reporter had discretion to take and there was no evidence of fault in how he arrived at that decision.

Summary

Mr C complained about how the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal (COPFS) dealt with his complaint. Our jurisdiction in complaints about COPFS is very limited, and we could look only at whether they acted in line with their complaints procedure.

We found that Mr C raised a number of issues in his letters, and in their responses at each stage COPFS: explained how they had investigated, referred to and cited evidence in support of their responses; and provided responses to the points Mr C raised. This showed a reasonable level of investigation. At the time Mr C complained, however, COPFS had three formal stages in their complaints procedure. At stage one, they took longer than the 20 working days allowed for in their procedure to respond to Mr C's complaint. We found that this was reasonable in the circumstances, given the content of letters between Mr C and COPFS. At stage two, however, there were two periods longer than 20 working days when COPFS provided no updates. In addition, they did not explain to Mr C until the stage three response why the investigating officer changed during the stage two consideration of his complaint. In our view, it would have been reasonable to tell Mr C at the time the change was made, and we upheld his complaint due to the failings at stage two.

We did not, however, make any recommendations because COPFS had already apologised for the lack of updates at stage two. COPFS also explained to us what they had done to improve complaints handling under their new complaints procedure.

Summary

Miss C was party to legal proceedings. She complained to the Scottish Court Service (SCS) that she had not received within a reasonable timescale a copy of documents relating to the decisions taken at the proceedings. She then submitted a claim for compensation due to the consequences of the documents not being provided within a reasonable timescale. At the conclusion of this correspondence the SCS told her that her complaints had been considered under their complaints procedure. Miss C was dissatisfied with this and complained to us that the response to her complaints had not been reasonable.

Our investigation found that it was reasonable that there was some confusion about what Miss C wished the SCS to consider, given the context of her communication with them. However, because their complaints handling guidance highlighted the importance of clarifying matters with the complainant, and because Miss C had eventually made reasonably clear what she wished the SCS to consider, we upheld her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SCS:

• apologise to Miss C that they did not respond reasonably to her complaint; and
• highlight to all relevant staff the importance of clarifying the matters that a complainant wishes to be considered at all stages of the complaints handling process.

Summary

Mr C complained that Children's Hearings Scotland (CHS) had unreasonably failed to investigate his complaints about two children's panel hearings. CHS told Mr C that they were unable to investigate the complaint about the earlier hearing because they were not the body responsible for panel members at the time of that hearing. In relation to the second complaint, CHS said that they cannot normally consider complaints made more than six months after the person has become aware of the matter they wish to complain about. They told Mr C that his complaint about the later panel hearing fell outwith that period, but asked if he had any special circumstances that meant they should waive this restriction. Mr C explained that he had a disability. CHS considered this but decided that this did not, in itself, constitute special circumstances that would justify the waiving of the restriction. They invited Mr C to provide more information if he believed there were circumstances they had not considered. Mr C then complained to us.

We found that the terms of the relevant legislation meant that CHS' decision on the complaint about the earlier panel hearing was correct and that the steps they took in considering whether there were special circumstances in relation to the complaint about the later panel hearing were reasonable. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaints.