Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Mr C complained to the Public Standards Commissioner about the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC). The issue concerned a complaint about the SLCC's predecessor organisation, the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (SLSO). Mr C complained to us that the Commissioner did not respond to all of his allegations or look at specific evidence; looked into matters he should not have; and did not respond properly to all the issues raised in Mr C's letters.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We looked at the law that set up the Commissioner's office and their investigation guidelines. Our investigation found that there was no obligation on the Commissioner to respond in detail to every matter raised in a complaint. From looking at the records, we also found that the Commissioner explained why he could not look at all Mr C's allegations. He also explained to Mr C that the matters raised could not amount to a breach of the SLCC's code of conduct. Although Mr C disagreed with this, we found that the Commissioner's actions were in keeping with the investigation guidelines and were reasonable in the circumstances. We also concluded that his written responses to Mr C were reasonable.

The Commissioner's office had requested a copy of an SLSO opinion from Mr C because it was a key document that Mr C mentioned in making his complaint. The Commissioner referred to the opinion in correspondence with Mr C for the same reason, and because it was central to the origin of Mr C's complaint. We found that requesting a copy of the opinion and referring to it in correspondence did not constitute an investigation. The Commissioner told Mr C he had carefully examined all of the information. He did not say he had examined all of the information about the SLSO's opinion. We understood the Commissioner's statement to mean that he examined all of the information provided to him, which we concluded was reasonable.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) (including the Lord Advocate) had failed to adequately respond to correspondence from him. Having carefully reviewed the correspondence between Mr C and the COPFS, we were satisfied that the responses he received were adequate and in line with the COPFS customer feedback policy.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment she received from a hospital. She outlined eight specific areas of concern, including communication, standard of care, waiting times, lack of after care and competence of staff. She said that she initially went to the hospital with symptoms of bowel disease, but her worsening symptoms suggested a gynaecological problem. She said that after that she experienced other health issues. She underwent an operation and was referred for treatment to another health board. Ms C’s complaint to us also included other issues of concern including misdiagnosis, inappropriate administration of medication and poor complaints handling.

Our medical adviser considered all aspects of Ms C’s complaints and said that she displayed complex symptoms and had had a thorough investigation of her gastro-intestinal tract. She had an ovarian cyst (a sac filled with fluid that forms on or inside an ovary) removed promptly and an area of endometriosis (small pieces of womb lining found outside of the womb) destroyed. We found that medication was appropriately used, communication was effective and Ms C received timely inpatient attention and after care. Having taken account of all the evidence and the advice received, we considered that the board appropriately addressed and responded to all Ms C’s complaints. Although we did not uphold her complaints, we found some delay in advising Ms C's GP of a test result.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise for the delay in sending the results of the echocardiogram test to the GP; and
• take steps to ensure such a delay does not recurr.

Summary

Mrs C was a witness to an incident that was taken to trial by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). Mrs C was unhappy with how matters had been handled. When COPFS responded to her complaints, they accepted that telephone calls were not returned when they should have been and apologised for this. Mrs C remained dissatisfied and complained to us that COPFS had not returned her telephone calls.

We upheld her complaint but as COPFS had taken appropriate steps to apologise to Mrs C and ensure that the issues she faced would not happen again, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Ms C complained that the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) unreasonably refused her funding for a course, despite advising her course tutors that funding would be provided. She also complained about the delay in processing her application.

We found that SAAS did not provide information on their website or their 'Guide to Post Graduate Student Support' about restrictions on providing funding for students who had previously received support for courses from EU funding. However, they explained that these information sources were for guidance purposes only, and that only when an application was submitted could all criteria be considered. As this information was for guidance only, and as SAAS demonstrated that Ms C did not qualify for support, we did not uphold these aspects of her complaint. However, we did uphold her complaint that they failed to assess her application within their advertised timescales.

Recommendations

We recommended that SAAS:

• ensure that they comply with their advertised timescales when assessing applications and write to Ms C to apologise for failing to meet their timescales in this case.

Summary

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) prosecuted Mrs C for breach of the peace. Mrs C's husband (Mr C) had questions about some of the witness statements that were provided as evidence. He had several email exchanges with COPFS and complained about the way they had responded. Mr and Mrs C said that some emails were not responded to, and that others were not provided within a reasonable time.

We upheld the complaint because when we looked at the correspondence we found that there were instances when COPFS failed to respond, or did not respond in a reasonable way, to specific emails. We noted that there was an extensive amount of contact from Mr C which included long email chains and it was not always obvious what emails COPFS were acknowledging or responding to. Overall, we also found that they were inconsistent in dealing with Mr C's contact with them, because they continued to respond to him about issues that they had previously told him should be raised with them through Mrs C's solicitor.

Recommendations

We recommended that COPFS:

• review their contact procedures to prevent recurrence of a similar situation.

Summary
Mr C complained that a particular training course should not be broadly eligible for Individual Learning Account (ILA) Scotland funding because it was a statutory requirement for anyone employed in a particular industry. He said that clause 7 of ILA Scotland’s Operational Rules states that learning which is a statutory requirement for the individual’s employment is not eligible for this funding. Skills Development Scotland, however, advised Mr C that the eligibility for such funding in fact depended upon the nature of the individual applicant's employment.

Mr C disagreed with this and raised his complaint with us. We did not, however, uphold it as we agreed that the fact that a training course was a statutory requirement for those in particular jobs did not preclude those not employed in such roles from undertaking the training.

Summary
Mrs C complained on behalf of her daughter that there had been an error in how an examination had been marked. Despite consistently telling the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) that a mistake had been made, Mrs C was unhappy that her representations were treated as an appeal. She complained that the SQA failed to acknowledge that an administrative error in dealing with her daughter's results led to an incorrect result being recorded for her and that the SQA were rude and unhelpful in dealing with her complaint. She also said that they failed to properly investigate the circumstances.

When we investigated, we found that although the SQA made a full clerical check of the circumstances they did not explore the possibility that a error could have been made when originally transcribing Mrs C's daughter's mark. In the circumstances, we could not determine whether or not an error had actually been made. We could not, therefore, uphold this part of the complaint. However, it was clear that the SQA had not made appropriate and full enquiries about the matter. We upheld Mrs C's complaints about this and made recommendations to address the failings identified.

Recommendations
We recommended that the SQA:
• apologise to Mrs C and her daughter for the failures in the handling of the complaint;
• ensure staff receive training to allow them to differentiate between appeals and complaints and that their advice to the public should similarly differentiate; and
• emphasise to staff the importance of fully responding to correspondence from the public.

Summary
Mrs C complained that the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland (the Commission) failed to respond appropriately to a letter sent to them by her son. The letter contained her son's concerns about his detention and treatment under Mental Health legislation. In addition, Mrs C complained that the Commission failed to tell her or her husband about the letter, and failed to provide her son with reasonable levels of help following a meeting in 2008.

We did not look into the complaint about levels of help, as Mrs C had not given the Commission the opportunity to respond to her concerns on this point through their complaints process.

We did not uphold her complaint that they failed to inform her or her husband of the letter, as the Commission had no authority to share this information with them. We did, however, uphold her complaint that they had failed to respond appropriately to the letter. We found that their response was delayed by staff absence and that by the time the letter was actioned, their son had moved to stay with his brother in another part of the UK. As, however, the Commission had acknowledged and apologised for their failure to respond promptly to the letter, made changes to their processes and as they had visited him in hospital when he returned to Scotland, we did not recommend any further actions.

Summary
Ms C complained on behalf of her brother-in-law (Mr A) about Historic Scotland’s rescheduling process for a town wall and bastion. Ms C said Historic Scotland failed to provide Mr A with clear information on the rescheduling process. This caused him confusion and uncertainty and resulted in him not submitting relevant information to them. Ms C said that Historic Scotland’s letters to Mr A failed to convey the importance of the issue; failed to state that Mr A’s property was affected by the process; and failed to suggest that Mr A should consider seeking legal advice.

During our investigation we considered the relevant legislation and noted that there was no legal requirement for Historic Scotland to consult with owners prior to rescheduling an existing monument. Any consultation that they chose to carry out was entirely voluntary. Historic Scotland’s procedures required them to notify the owner or occupier of their intention to propose a site for rescheduling and providing full details of the proposal.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. We found that Historic Scotland wrote to Mr A three times about the rescheduling review. We considered that their letters made it clear that this was a matter that was important and might affect him. They also sent him maps showing his property and asked them to contact them if he was not the owner. We found that there was no requirement for them to advise owners to consider seeking legal advice. In addition, in each letter Historic Scotland invited Mr A to contact them if he had any questions, which he did not take the opportunity to do. If he had been in any way uncertain about the implications of the letters then we considered it would have been reasonable for him to have contacted Historic Scotland.