Not upheld, no recommendations

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

Mr C, who is a business adviser, complained on behalf of clients about Business Stream. He said that Business Stream had billed his clients for water services based on incorrect information. He maintained that although he brought these inaccuracies to Business Stream's attention, they failed to amend them or change their bill. He said that as a consequence, his clients had been put under stress by Business Stream who did not readily put the account concerned on hold until the matter had been resolved. He said that his clients had been prevented from switching suppliers and that a switch might have been to their financial advantage.

We investigated the complaints, taking all the relevant information into account, including all correspondence and statements of account and invoices, internal notes and emails, together with printouts from the Central Marketing Agency (CMA). The CMA is the organisation that administers the market for water and waste water retail services in Scotland.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation showed that although Mr C maintained that Business Stream had used the incorrect start date for invoicing, the CMA information confirmed Business Stream's understanding as correct. Mr C's client's account had been put on hold for the duration of the complaint and the client's own actions, in disputing their bill, was what had prevented them from switching users.

Summary

Mr C, who is a business adviser, complained on behalf of his client about Business Stream. He said that bills issued to the client were incorrect, despite Business Stream being provided with the correct information. He also said that, despite requests, Business Stream had failed to install meters at the client's premises and had put the client under undue stress by not putting their account on hold. He maintained that Business Stream's actions had denied his client the opportunity of switching water providers which would have been financially advantageous.

We investigated the complaints, taking all the relevant information into account, including all correspondence and statements of account and invoices, together with relevant emails and printouts from the Central Market Agency (CMA). The CMA is the organisation that administers the market for water and waste water retail services in Scotland.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the information he held and upon which he had based his complaint was incorrect. We confirmed this by reference to information from the CMA. Mr C and his client had been given information about having bills reassessed, which would have allowed Scottish Water to install a meter at their cost, or alternatively for Scottish Water to make a contribution to the necessary cost. We also found that the client's account was on hold, and that Business Stream's actions had not prevented them from switching suppliers.

Summary

Mr C, who is a business adviser, complained on behalf of his client, a customer of Business Stream. He alleged that Business Stream were incorrectly charging for water and waste water services based on the wrong effective start date, despite his client drawing this error to Business Stream's attention. Mr C further alleged that his client had been put under unreasonable stress as a consequence, and that Business Stream had not readily agreed to suspend action to recover the money they claimed was due. He maintained that his client had also been prevented from changing suppliers because of Business Stream's mistakes.

We investigated the complaint, taking all the relevant documentation into account including Business Stream's complaint file, the relevant bills, internal emails etc. We also made formal enquiries of Business Stream.

We did not, however, uphold the complaints. Mr C believed that the premises concerned were a 'gap' site (ie that the site had a live water and waste water connection but neither Scottish Water or Business Stream knew that the property existed). Our investigation established that this was not the case and, rather, the premises were determined to be 'vacant' (ie Scottish Water and Business Stream were aware that the property existed and had a water connection, but believed the premises to be vacant). There were different billing arrangements in place for each of these categories when the water industry market opened for competition. Mr C had mistakenly assumed that his client occupied a gap site rather than a vacant site, and our investigation found that the way in which his client was billed was in fact correct.

Our investigation also revealed that Mr C's client's account was suspended during Business Stream's investigation and that there was no evidence of his client being harassed or bullied. Furthermore, as it was confirmed that the company had been properly charged for its water services, we did not find that they had been unreasonably prevented from changing supplier. Business Stream had in fact provided information about this to Mr C's client, had they wished to progress the matter.

Summary

The council proposed to change the catchment area of the primary school that Mrs C's child attends. The proposed changes meant that children from Street X would in future attend a different primary when starting school. Mrs C lives in Street X, and had expected that her second child would go to the same school as her first, so she was unhappy with the proposals and contributed to the consultation on them. The council's education executive, however, decided to accept the proposals, although with some alterations. The alterations meant that Street Y would remain in the school's original catchment area, but not Street X.

Mrs C felt this was unfair and complained to the council. She complained that they had failed to adequately inform directly affected parents of the proposed changes and had failed to adequately consult members of the public about the decision to retain the catchment area of Street Y. She further complained that the chief executive had failed to give an adequate response to her complaint that the decision to retain the catchment area of Street Y was unfair to pupils in Street X, where circumstances were the same.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council's method of informing directly affected parents of the proposed changes was reasonable, as was the decision that no further consultation was required about the decision to retain the catchment area of street Y. The chief executive had explained that the decisions on the proposals were taken by the education executive following consideration of all submissions to the consultation, and the council officer report on the outcome of the consultation. We found this to have been an adequate response to Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who was homeless, said he was duped into bidding for a property that he did not want when the council used a misleading image to advertise the property. The picture used was a computer generated image which Mr C said bore no resemblance to the actual building being constructed and the council did not disclose that it was a multi-storey building. Mr C said that, as a recovering drug addict, the thought of living in a multi-storey block filled him with anxiety. The council, however, said they had fulfilled their statutory duty by making him an offer of suitable permanent accommodation. As they had fulfilled their duty under the homelessness legislation, the council removed his silver priority (a higher priority given to people in certain circumstances who are waiting to be housed). Mr C said that the medical evidence he provided concerning his grounds for refusing the property, and details of his personal circumstances, were not taken into consideration either at the initial decision to remove his priority, or when he appealed.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council acknowledged that the picture was an artist's impression, but said that the details included on the advert made it clear that the property had not yet been built. Having looked at the image, we found that it was quite clearly an artist's impression of what the building was expected to look like and the description of the property explained that it was a 'new build' and included a lift. We did not consider this unreasonable and found that the council had acted in accordance with their legislative duties and responsibilities and the code of guidance on homelessness in arriving at their decision to remove Mr C's silver priority when he refused a reasonable offer of accommodation.

Summary

Mr C complained that a council street cleaning team had falsely completed work sheets on two occasions and that the council had not responded appropriately to complaints about this. Mr C said the streets around his home had not been cleaned on the two days in question and provided photographs of litter and leaves on the streets around his home taken over a three week period before and after the days in question. Mr C complained to the council but was dissatisfied with the council's response, and said that the council had not directly addressed his complaint about falsification.

When we investigated, we found that the work sheet in question was an operational route sheet which was subject to change according to priority. The council said that they had investigated Mr C's complaint. The cleaning team confirmed they had followed the operational route sheet on the days in question and had cleaned the streets. The sheet did not indicate to what extent each street had been cleaned and the council accepted that Mr C's street may not have been completely delittered. However, we did not uphold the complaint, as there was no evidence of falsification on the part of the street cleaning teams. The photographs provided by Mr C were of limited evidential value, and did not provide a whole street picture which would enable us to carry out a before and after comparison.

We also found that the council had written to Mr C's MP after the complaint was made, refuting the allegation of falsification. We did not uphold the complaint about the council's failure to respond properly, as the council had made their position on the matter of falsification clear. Mr C had received a copy of the council's letter from his MP.

Summary

Mr C lived in a ground floor property next to a secondary school, a sheltered housing and day care complex, and an area of open ground (the plot). The plot had previously contained a pond with fluctuating water levels. This area was used to store materials for the construction of the sheltered housing and day care complex. Some three years later, according to Mr C, the plot was filled in and used as a site compound and storage area by contractors employed by a consortium that were redeveloping the school. Mr C had flooding problems at his home, and traced the start of them to the time when the plot was filled in. Mr C complained that the council acted unreasonably in allowing a company contracted by them to infill a site, resulting in severe flooding to his property, and that the council then failed to take adequate action to resolve the flooding problem.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found no evidence that the council were told about any proposal to infill or use the plot in conjunction with the redevelopment works at the school. On the second complaint, it was evident that after being alerted to significant flooding the council put in place extensive measures to prevent a recurrence.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's consultation process in selecting a site for a replacement of the local primary school. Specifically, he alleged that the council did not reasonably consult in selecting a site for the new school, did not reasonably consider other options for the site, did not adequately communicate their decision on a preferred site and did not keep adequate records of the consultation process.

Our investigation found that the need for a replacement school was identified in 2008, and that the council's development services had carried out a site option appraisal. In early 2009, the project was brought forward in the council's capital expenditure programme. The sites were later visited and scored by a cross service group of officers (using a site-scoring matrix). A report was presented to councillors in October 2009. In the following four months, meetings took place with the school's parent council and the town's community council, and in June 2010 councillors, council officers, community council members and parents visited the shortlisted sites. A limited public engagement exercise also took place at the local library.

The council made a decision on a preferred site in November 2010 and requested a further report on the business case for the replacement school on that site. This was approved in May 2011. Formal public consultation on the proposal in compliance with the recently introduced School Consultation (Scotland) Act 2010 took place in the autumn of 2011.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold any of the four elements of Mr C's complaint. We found that the consultation on site selection had been appropriate; the other options had been reasonably considered; and the council's reasons for selecting the preferred site were set out in the officers' reports and committee minutes. We also considered that the council had kept adequate records of the process.

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's consultation process in selecting a site for a replacement of the local primary school. Specifically, she alleged that the council did not reasonably consult in selecting a site for the new school, and did not reasonably consider other options for the site.

Our investigation found that the need for a replacement school was identified in 2008, and that the council's development services had carried out a site option appraisal. In early 2009, the project was brought forward in the council's capital expenditure programme. The sites were later visited and scored by a cross service group of officers (using a site-scoring matrix). A report was presented to councillors in October 2009. In the following four months, meetings took place with the school's parent council and the town's community council, and in June 2010 councillors, council officers, community council members and parents visited the shortlisted sites. A limited public engagement exercise also took place at the local library.

The council made a decision on a preferred site in November 2010 and requested a further report on the business case for the replacement school on that site. This was approved in May 2011. Formal public consultation on the proposal in compliance with the recently introduced School Consultation (Scotland) Act 2010 took place in the autumn of 2011.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold either of the two elements of Ms C's complaint. We found that the consultation on site selection had been appropriate, and that other options had been reasonably considered.