Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Mr C lives in a rural location accessed from a trunk road currently maintained by contractors instructed by Transport Scotland. In 2002/03 the trunk road and improved access works were upgraded by contractors appointed by the predecessor trunk road authority.

In the summer of 2011 Mr C experienced problems of standing water, deterioration of his private drive, the functioning of his septic tank and an underground cable for his satellite dish. He thought these were linked to the earlier road drainage works. Dissatisfied with Transport Scotland’s response to his complaints Mr C complained to us that the previous trunk road authority failed to make adequate provision for water draining from the trunk road, that Transport Scotland denied liability for damage caused as a result of their failures and delayed in responding to Mr C’s problems.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold any of these complaints. Changes in trunk road contractor and the misplacing or disposal of relevant drawings meant that it was not possible to establish what was designed. Transport Scotland had not accepted liability, as they were entitled to do. On a 'without prejudice' basis, Transport Scotland had instructed works in the summer of 2012 to try to resolve the problems, but Mr C disputed the effectiveness of those works. In the light of that dispute, therefore, we made one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Transport Scotland:

• monitor the effectiveness of the measures undertaken in July 2012 and, should these prove not to be effective in draining water from the trunk road, the need for further works be considered.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) dealt with his complaint about a charity. His concerns related to both the quality of the OSCR investigations and their communication with Mr C during and following their investigations.

Our investigation found no administrative failure in terms of the content of the investigation, but we did note that it had taken far too long to complete. In addition we noted that OSCR had failed to keep Mr C fully informed of the progress of the case and had not dealt appropriately with his subsequent complaint. We upheld these aspects of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator:

• provide an apology to Mr C for the injustice identified in our decision notice;
• introduce some limited form of routine updating to complainants and alter their inquiry and investigation policy accordingly; and
• review their complaints policy and consult with the Ombudsman before introducing a revised version.

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.