We have updated our Customer Service Standards and are looking for feedback from customers. Please fill out our survey here by 12 May 2025: https://forms.office.com/e/ZDpjibqe8r
The 2002 SPSO Act provides for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB - also referred to as the Parliamentary corporation) to pay the salary and expenses of the Ombudsman and any expenses incurred in the exercise of the Ombudsman’s function.
No. We do not name the person who made the complaint, and usually refer to them as Mr/Mrs/Ms C.
More information about how we investigate and report on complaints.
We can take complaints about schools. You will need to complete the local complaints process first and it is also important that you know there are some restrictions on what we can look at.
We can take complaints from children who are old enough to understand the process and, if your child is over 12 years old, we will ask you to show you have their consent if you are taking the complaint forward on their behalf. Our complaint form includes a section that lets you do this easily. If you have any questions about this, please contact us.
While the SPSO Act does not give a definition of maladministration, we use the following as examples of the kind of failings that come under the heading of maladministration:
The Ombudsman's terms of appointment are in the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002.
The Ombudsman is nominated by the Scottish Parliament, and appointed by the King, for a period of no more than eight years.
Mr C complained that the council failed to protect his family lair (burial plot) in line with their responsibilities by approving the internment of the ashes of his brother-in-law without his knowledge or approval, and that the council failed to respond to his subsequent complaint in accordance with their responsibilities.
We were satisfied that the council acted in line with the Regulations for the Management of Burial Grounds in East Lothian, and we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. However, we upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's response to his subsequent complaint, as we found that the council did not respond to Mr C's complaint within 20 working days and failed to keep him appropriately updated. The council told us they had since improved their complaints handling processes, and had carried out staff training, and they provided us with evidence of that.
Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a large scale dairy milking facility near his home. He said that the council had dealt with the application in a similar to way to that of a domestic planning application, which he did not consider appropriate given the scale of the facility. He was also of the view that the council had failed to properly assess the impact, in terms of noise, visibility and odour, that the development would have on his property. He also complained that the council did not notify him about the planning application.
Our investigation found that, as his property did not directly border the development, the council were not required to notify him of the application. We also found that they advertised it in the local paper, fulfilling their responsibilities in terms of the planning regulations. The planning department had also consulted the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and their own environmental health department before granting consent. We noted that the developer had sought permission for a number of planning applications, each of which was of a scale which would be considered a local development in planning terms. As we found no evidence to suggest that the council had acted outwith their own procedures or legal responsibilities, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.
Mr C had been a council tenant, but when his tenancy was terminated he was unable to store his belongings. The council had a statutory duty to protect his property as he was considered homeless, so they arranged for this to be packed up and taken into storage. They told him that they would pay the storage costs for him, but he would be liable to repay these when he was able to do so. Mr C was given a new council tenancy some five months later, and the council had the property taken out of storage and delivered to him. They also paid the fees for this, then re-charged all the costs to him. Mr C disputed the charges, saying that they were more than the fees quoted on the agreement, and queried the invoice from the removal firm that delivered the property to him. He had contacted the firm and was quoted a fee of £55 per hour and was told the job would probably only have taken about three hours. The council had charged him £291.50.
Our investigation found that the amounts re-charged to Mr C were the amounts the council had paid on his behalf. The agreement made it clear that the fees quoted were based on using one storage unit, but Mr C's property had taken more space than that. Similarly, the invoice from the removal firm added up to four hours work at the rate quoted to Mr C, plus VAT and insurance. It is not for us to decide if the amount charged by the firm was correct and we considered it reasonable for the council to re-charge Mr C for what they had paid on his behalf. We also noted that the legislation covering such matters allows for re-charging.
Mr C also complained that some of his property was missing. Some was found when Mr C brought this to the council's attention. Some property was damaged and the council had accepted Mr C's estimate of replacement costs and reduced the amount he owed them by this amount. Some items were not found but did not appear on the inventory taken when Mr C's property was packed up. We could not find out what had happened to these, but we did not uphold the complaint as there was no evidence to prove that they were lost or stolen while in the safekeeping of the council. We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to investigate these matters and had responded appropriately about them.
Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of his council tax account, in particular in relation to his application for empty property exemption. His complaints were about communication, updating addresses on the council's system and failure to take action to ensure errors made in his case were not repeated.
During our investigation we found that the council had responded to Mr C's initial enquiries about empty property exemption, but then delayed in taking action after he asked whether his property was exempt on the grounds that it was uninhabitable. The council had also accepted prior to our involvement that they should not have applied for a summary warrant for unpaid council tax, as the demand notice and reminder issued were incorrectly addressed. We found no evidence that emails or phone calls were not responded to, but did find that the council had incorrectly addressed correspondence. However, as we were satisfied that before we became involved they had already taken some action and proposed to take more, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.
Mr C's late mother (Mrs A) was a council tenant before her death, and he complained to us about the way the council had handled a request for his mother's carer to move into the house shortly before his mother died. Although the request appeared to come from his mother, he told us that she had dementia and that the council did not establish if she had the capacity to make this decision when they allowed the carer to move in. He was also unhappy with the way the council handled the situation when, after his mother died, the carer was allowed to succeed to the tenancy.
As it was clear that the council knew that Mrs A had dementia, we were concerned that they accepted the request without making certain specific checks. We took the view that this meant they had failed to safeguard the interests of a vulnerable tenant and we upheld this part of the complaint. The council told us that it was impossible to say whether a further check would have changed the decision in this case. They apologised, however, that their procedure was not as robust as it could have been. They agreed to revise their procedures to provide guidance and ensure that in future there would be a home visit and further checks before a carer could move in. We found no evidence, however, that they failed to follow the correct procedure in handling the succession to the tenancy.
We recommended that the council: