Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Ms C complained about the Care Inspectorate's handling of an investigation into a complaint made about her nursery, which had been upheld. In particular, she said that they failed to deal with the investigation within the timescales allowed, failed to deal with the complaint in a reasonable manner and did not conduct the investigation according to their guidelines. She also said that they published their decision on their website following the investigation, although she had submitted a complaint about their handling of the complaint.

During our investigation we found that, in line with their procedures, the Inspectorate had communicated with the parent who had made the complaint about the timescale for completion of the investigation. However, they accepted that they should have told Ms C that the investigation was not going to be completed within the timescales detailed in their procedures and should have apologised for this. We were satisfied that the Inspectorate had considered and responded to Ms C's concerns about how they had dealt with the complaint about her nursery. In addition, we noted that, as a result of Ms C's concerns, they had agreed to reopen the parent's complaint for a further full investigation to allow further information to be sought, and had decided to set aside the regrading that had been applied following the complaint. However, we were concerned that there had been a delay in removing the regrading information from their website.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Care Inspectorate:

• apologise to Ms C for the delay in removing the downgrading from the website.

Summary

Mr C was accused of acting inappropriately when visiting his mother in a care home. He was dissatisfied with the care home's investigation into the incident and complained to the Care Inspectorate. They agreed to investigate two elements of Mr C's complaint, focusing on the care home's application of their policies and procedures, rather than the incident itself. They were satisfied that the care home had followed their procedures appropriately when investigating Mr C's complaint and deciding what action to take. Mr C complained that the Care Inspectorate's investigation was not thorough and demonstrated a bias towards the care home.

We found that the Care Inspectorate had ruled out all aspects of Mr C's complaint that related to the incident at the care home, but we considered that decisions about the extent of their remit for investigating complaints were a matter for their discretion. We were satisfied that they had given due consideration to their governing legislation when reaching this decision and that the conclusion they reached was reasonable. That said, we were critical of the explanation they gave Mr C about why certain aspects of his complaint were ruled out. Mr C had raised a number of concerns about the incident and how it had been handled, and he was not given a detailed explanation as to why the Care Inspectorate's investigation reports did not address these concerns. We were satisfied that the investigation did not have a bias toward the care home, but we felt that the report could have better acknowledged Mr C's side of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Care Inspectorate:

• review their email correspondence with Mr C with a view to identifying ways of improving how they communicate decisions regarding their remit and procedures to complainants; and
• apologise to Mr C for the lack of detail and clarity in their correspondence with him.

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

Mrs C complained to the Care Inspectorate after an incident when her young son was left unattended by his registered childminder. They told her that they had already been in the process of investigating this, because of an earlier complaint about the incident from a member of the public. However, during the process the childminder had voluntarily cancelled her registration and so they now could not investigate further, as they said they were not legally allowed to do so.

Mrs C complained to us that the Care Inspectorate had failed to establish the facts of her complaint and thoroughly investigate it. We found that the Care Inspectorate had thoroughly investigated the other complaint and had upheld both aspects. The childminder had admitted her failings and, in their regulatory capacity, the Care Inspectorate had taken appropriate action that led to her voluntarily cancelling her registration a week before Mrs C complained. Because this had happened, and because she was not registered when Mrs C complained, the Care Inspectorate were in fact unable to investigate. We did not find this position unreasonable and did not uphold her complaint.

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, had appeared before the Parole Board for Scotland, but they did not direct that Mr C should be released. He complained to them that they had not made their decision in line with the relevant rules, as it was based solely on risk assessment reports. The Parole Board advised that they had taken a wide range of information into account in reaching the decision, and gave examples of this.

Mr C was dissatisfied and raised his complaints with us. After investigating the matter, we decided that the Parole Board had reasonably followed the rules, and did not uphold Mr C's complaint about this. We did, however, uphold his complaint about how they had handled his complaint to them, as they had not included a reasonable level of detail in order to provide a clear explanation of their decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Parole Board:

• apologise to Mr C for not responding reasonably to his complaint; and
• review their complaints handling guidelines to ensure that complaint responses include a level of detail to ensure reasonably clear explanations of their decisions are provided.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland had not reasonably handled her concerns about her detention under the Mental Health Act. We explained to Ms C that we could not look at the matter of her detention, but we did look at how they handled her concerns. We found that, following receipt of Ms C's original letter in which she outlined these concerns, the commission requested further information so that they could make a decision about whether and how to deal with the issues she had raised. Ms C told us that she did not receive this letter and so went on to send three follow-up letter, but received no acknowledgement or response to these.

The commission then wrote to Ms C to clarify what information was required, and she provided this in a letter. In it she made it clear that she was unhappy with the handling of her correspondence and said she could not understand whether her letters had been received and why they had not generated any acknowledgement or response. She asked for all her complaints to be looked at together by a senior manager. Ms C again received no reply, and wrote again a month later. The commission did then respond to the issues she had raised and apologised for their failure to reply. Ms C was advised of her right to complain about the handling of her correspondence. She exercised that right and the commission upheld her complaint.

Our investigation also upheld Ms C's complaint. We found that it should have been clear on receiving her three follow-up letters that she had not received the letter requesting further information; so three opportunities to set the record straight were missed. When Ms C wrote to provide the information requested she then had to prompt the commission again by sending a follow-up letter. We found this unacceptable. We also found that the commission could have recognised Ms C's dissatisfaction earlier and should have dealt with the issues about their handling of her correspondence at an earlier stage under their complaints handling procedure.

We noted that the commission have taken the positive step of developing written guidance for staff on dealing with incoming correspondence. They had also apologised to Ms C on three occasions, so in the circumstances we had no further recommendations to make.

Summary

Mr C was in contact with the sheriff court about divorce proceedings. He complained to us that the court failed to provide him with an adequate service in relation to those proceedings. In particular, Mr C said his written communications were not passed to the sheriff for appropriate consideration prior to reaching a decision on the divorce proceedings. In addition, Mr C complained that the sheriff court failed to investigate his complaint appropriately.

Our consideration of Mr C's complaint was restricted to looking at the court's administrative handling of his communications. When our investigation reviewed the evidence, it was clear there were several administrative failings in handling correspondence. These included not passing Mr C's written submissions to the sheriff for consideration; not responding to requests for information; and not advising Mr C of the outcome of his divorce within an appropriate timescale. The sheriff court, and the Scottish Court Service (SCS), acknowledged and accepted the failings identified in Mr C's complaint, and because of this we upheld Mr C's complaint although we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations as they had already taken appropriate action.

We did not agree with Mr C that the sheriff court failed to investigative his complaint appropriately. We were satisfied that the issues he raised in his complaint were considered, investigated and responded to appropriately by both the court and the SCS.

Summary

Mr C was a visitor to an elderly friend (Ms A) in a care home. He was concerned about her welfare and raised questions about this, but they were not answered and he was told he was no longer welcome to visit. He complained to the Care Inspectorate, who looked into the matter, but then told him that they were satisfied that matters had been handled properly and that his complaint was not something they could look at. They said that they had been in touch with social services and the welfare guardian with power of attorney for Ms A, and neither had expressed any concerns about her care. Mr C complained to us that the Care Inspectorate had unreasonably failed to answer his concerns about Ms A.

After investigating the complaint, we were satisfied that the Care Inspectorate had properly looked into Mr C's concerns, and were, in the circumstances, quite correct in not providing him with information about Ms A. He is not related to her and she has a welfare guardian with responsibility for her wellbeing and her affairs. We noted that the welfare guardian, who is regarded as speaking for Ms A, had said that they did not want Mr C to visit again.

Summary

Miss C's mother had received care services through her local council for a number of years, but these were suddenly withdrawn. Miss C complained to the council and also asked the Care Inspectorate to investigate. The Care Inspectorate investigated four complaints about the council's termination of Miss C's mother's care arrangements and upheld two of those complaints. Miss C was, however, concerned about the way this was investigated, and how the available evidence was used. She asked that they review their decision on two of her complaints. She then complained to us about delays in the Care Inspectorate's handling of her review request and about the lack of any action being required of the council when her complaints were eventually upheld.

We found that, although there were certainly delays in reinvestigating Miss C's complaints, the investigation generally progressed reasonably and communication with her about the cause of the delays was good. The delays were caused by matters that were largely beyond the Care Inspectorate's control. That said, we were critical of the length of time that they took to decide that the two complaints should be reinvestigated. We upheld the complaint about the delay in investigating, but were otherwise satisfied with the Care Inspectorate's actions in terms of notifying the council of their revised decision and following up on the action they asked the local authority to take on the issues highlighted by their investigation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Care Inspectorate:

• apologise to Miss C for the delay in coming to a decision to reinvestigate her complaint and to conduct the investigation; and
• consider incorporating into the 2012 complaints procedure a specific timescale for the initial assessment of whether a decision should be reviewed.