Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

C complained about the withdrawal of their student award by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS). SAAS acknowledged errors in this case, but stated that they had no alternative but to withdraw funding immediately when they became aware of their mistake. We asked SAAS whether they had given any consideration to the impact on C of their decision, why they were unable to take alternative action, why the errors appeared to have been made on multiple occasions and why funding had to be withdrawn without warning. We asked SAAS to reconsider whether they could resolve C’s complaint, after they had previously rejected this approach.

SAAS proposed the following resolution:

reinstation of the student fees for session 2021-22 and paying the amount directly to the relevant university on C’s behalf

pay tuition fees for session 2022-2023 on the basis that C had a reasonable expectation to funding for their course of study. C would need to submit an online application for this session and funding would be awarded on receipt of this.

C agreed to this resolution, and the case was closed accordingly.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their clients about a decision made by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) not to renew a ‘Paragraph 19 Exemption’ (the exemption) for a land re-engineering project. Normally, waste management requires a licence, however an exemption can be applied which allows for the use of waste for the construction, maintenance or improvements of a building, road, railway, airport, dock or other transport facility; recreational facilities; drainage; or certain engineering works. C’s clients had been granted an exemption for four consecutive years but their fifth renewal application was declined by SEPA.

We confirmed that we would not be considering the professional judgement of SEPA, but could look at whether they provided a reasonable explanation for their decision not to renew the exemption.

We noted that the original reason SEPA gave for refusing the application was that the proposed infill of the upcoming phase was of a depth exceeding the dimension of the final cross sections shown on the plans. Additionally, SEPA said that when their officers inspected the site, they observed that waste had been deposited onto waterlogged land. This is not permitted under the terms of an exempt activity.

In the correspondence with C that followed, we found that SEPA gave a number of differing reasons for their decision not to renew the exemption. When C advised SEPA they had referred to the wrong plans in reaching their decision, rather than provide an explanation or apology, SEPA gave a different reason for declining the renewal application. We found that SEPA did not adequately address a number of matters raised by C in relation to their decision. As such, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to provide a reasonable explanation for the decision not to renew C’s clients’ Paragraph 19 Exemption. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Consider what we have said in our decision and assess whether it is appropriate to reassess the Paragraph 19 Exemption on the basis of our findings. If SEPA do not consider that reassessment is warranted, or if they reassess and decline the application, they should write out to the applicant providing clear and justifiable reasons for their decision.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Appropriate and clear reasons should be provided for decisions in relation to waste management exemptions.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be accurately identified as such and dealt with through the correct procedure.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), regarding interactions they had before, during and after a homicide prosecution following the death of their adult child (A). C did not consider that COPFS had adopted a reasonable approach to victim support in their case. They expressed a number of concerns about the support that they had initially been provided. They told us that this led them to request no further contact with the officer initially allocated to provide support, but when they changed their mind and asked for contact to resume, COPFS had refused to allocate another officer to support their family. They also raised concerns about COPFS communication with them and their family, both in terms of the tone, and failures to respond to specific points raised by them. In addition, they told us they did not consider COPFS had reasonably handled their resulting complaints about these matters.

On investigation, we found that COPFS had failed to provide C and their family with appropriate support in a number of ways. We found that COPFS had internally recorded a number of concerns about C’s attitude and behaviour, suggesting that they were acting in a way that was difficult or unreasonable, without recording what behaviours they considered were unreasonable or why, or raising these concerns with C to allow them the opportunity to amend any behaviours COPFS considered unreasonable. This was despite the difficult circumstances C’s family were facing, and nothing within the records evidenced that COPFS had considered the additional pressures facing C and their family.

We considered that COPFS had effectively refused to provide normal victim support to C and their family, by failing to honour clear requests by C for support to resume. We also found that COPFS had failed to follow their normal protocols when the case had been handed over from the Police, which negatively impacted C’s family’s experience of that process. Overall, we considered that COPFS had failed to meet the standards they had committed to provide in the Victim’s Code for Scotland by failing to treat C’s family with sensitivity and tailor their approach to support based on C and their family’s needs.

Regarding C’s communication concerns, we found a number of examples of unreasonable failures in communication. We found that there were a number of delays and/or failures to respond to contacts from C. We also found that a number of COPFS communications failed to treat C with appropriate sensitivity, including failures to offer appropriate condolences to C’s family on their loss. We also found a number of entries in COPFS internal records which used a concerning tone when referring to C. We did not consider that this could be said to meet the standards that COPFS committed to providing to victim’s families under the Victim’s Code.

Regarding C’s complaints handling failures, we found that COPFS had failed to respond appropriately to all of C’s complaints. A number of their responses failed to respond to specific points C had raised or failed to respond in sufficient detail.

Given all of these points, we upheld all of C’s complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and their family for failing to provide them with appropriate support, failing to communicate with them reasonably, and failing to handle their subsequent complaints reasonably. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• All of COPFS interactions with victims and their families should meet the standards of the Victims’ Code. Communication should be sensitive and tailored to victims’ individual needs. Records made about individuals should also be sensitive and appropriate in tone.
• The Managing Family Liaison Protocol should be followed whenever making initial contact with a victim or their family.
• When concerns are held about someone’s behaviour, COPFS should make a clear record of the reasons for this and follow their Unacceptable Actions Policy if they wish to take action to address those concerns.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• COPFS should fully investigate all complaints and provide detailed explanations of their findings. Where failings are evident, these should be highlighted and appropriate steps taken to avoid similar mistakes in future.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C was a grower of seed potatoes. They complained about the actions of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency (SASA), a division of the Scottish Government. C complained that SASA failed to follow their own published procedures when handling the assessment and certification of C's seed potato crops.

C complained that SASA unreasonably delayed inspecting their crops by requiring payment for the inspections in advance, contrary to the normal procedure of paying after the inspection. C also complained that the initial crop inspection identified an unrealistically high level of plant virus. Whilst a check inspection found C's crops to be well within the tolerance levels for virus, C was advised that the crops would not be certified until further lab tests were carried out. C complained that they were subjected to unreasonable additional testing and that they were not treated the same as other farmers. C said that the testing process caused unnecessary delays to their crops being certified and listed on the Potato Register. As such, C was unable to market the seed potatoes for sale until the purchasing season had ended. C explained that, as a result of the issues they encountered, they lost sales worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

We found that SASA required C to pay for the inspection in advance as their account was in arrears. We were satisfied that this was standard practice in the circumstances and, whilst there was a delay to the payment being confirmed by SASA, this did not have a significant impact on the time taken to arrange C's initial crop inspection.

We were satisfied that SASA were able to demonstrate that they took a reasoned approach to inspecting and testing C's crops that focussed on the health of the crops and their suitability for sale. We did not find any evidence to suggest that C was treated unfairly or that SASA instructed additional testing without giving proper consideration to all of the circumstances. We did not uphold these aspects of C's complaint. Whilst we were satisfied that SASA followed their normal procedures, we were critical of their failure to state these procedures clearly in the guidance they issue to farmers. We also found that they failed to explain their actions clearly to C, or to proactively guide them towards the appeals process.

We found that there was an unreasonable delay of three months between C's crops being certified and them being listed on the online Potato Register. We were critical of SASA's communication with C regarding the stratus of the crops during this period. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the issues highlighted in this decision. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• SASA should review how they communicate their appeals procedure.
• SASA should review how they communicate their procedures for crops that fail their inspections or that are certified later in the season than normal.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the way that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) dealt with their communications with them following their adult child (A)'s death by suicide. C said that the COPFS failed to deal with C's request for the return of A's property appropriately; failed to provide C with the final post-mortem report on A's death within a reasonable time; and failed to investigate C's complaint about these two matters appropriately.

It is not for this office to question decisions by the COPFS regarding the release of A's belongings, as the COPFS's decisions regarding prosecutions/whether or not to investigate Fatal Accident Inquiries are outwith the remit of this office. We therefore considered whether or not the COPFS did what they advised C that they would do in relation to the release of A's belongings and whether they acted in line with their guidance.

The records showed that the COPFS considered C's request for the return of A's property, made during a telephone call, and authorised release of some of A's belongings and that this was then communicated to the police and the belongings were released. It would appear that after receipt of an email from C in which they complained and requested the release of the remainder of A's belongings, the COPFS then authorised their release. The COPFS acknowledged that they should have responded to C's email, advised that they fed back this failing to staff and provided documentary evidence to verify that this took place at the time. We considered the remedial action by the COPFS to be reasonable and did not uphold this part of the complaint.

On the matter of the provision of the final post-mortem on A's death, the COPFS explained the difficulties they experienced with their toxicology report service provider and how this in turn impacted on the timescale for receipt of post-mortem reports by the COPFS and notification of the outcome to the next of kin. In this case, notification of the outcome of the post-mortem to C and issuing of the report on request did not take place until more than four months after the timescale stated in the COPFS's procedures. We were critical of this delay and upheld this part of the complaint. We noted that COPFS indicated that they had taken a number of steps to address the delay which was positive.

On the issue of the investigation of C's complaint, while a number of aspects of the COPFS's investigation into C's complaint and complaint response were reasonable, we found that the complaint response failed to address C's expression of dissatisfaction regarding the delay in completing A's post-mortem. We, therefore, upheld this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and their family for the unreasonable delay in notifying C of the outcome of the post-mortem on A's death and providing them with a copy of the report on request and for failing to address C's concerns about the delay in providing A's post-mortem report in their complaint response. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• For COPFS complaint responses to address all issues raised as part of the complaint that the COPFS are responsible for, in accordance with their complaint handling procedure.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained that the Scottish Government failed to deal with their complaint over an extended period. C said they repeatedly had to chase the Scottish Government for a response.

When C first approached this office, they had not completed the Scottish Government's complaints procedure. Although we received assurances from the Scottish Government that the case was being progressed, C repeatedly informed us that they were not receiving updates, or responses to their correspondence. We chose to exercise our discretion and proceed to an investigation, even though C had not completed the Scottish Government's complaints procedure.

We found that the Scottish Government had failed to handle C's complaint in line with their published complaints procedure. They had not complied with the time scales set out in their complaints handling procedure, records had not been kept appropriately and C had not been kept informed of developments, nor had the Scottish Government responded to correspondence.

We upheld C's complaint, but because of a similar case, concluded just before theirs, further recommendations were not made to the Scottish Government who have since taken significant steps to improve their complaint handling.

Summary

C complained the Scottish Government had repeatedly failed to provide them with accurate information about agricultural grants that they were entitled to apply for. C said they had repeatedly visited the local office without receiving accurate information. C had complained about their experience but they had not received a response for a year. C said the Scottish Government response would not have been issued had they not repeatedly chased it up.

We found that there was very little evidence of the Scottish Government's complaint investigation. It was a matter of fact that C was responsible as the business owner for confirming that they had applied for all the entitlements they were eligible for. There was no evidence C had done this. In addition, for some of the years, C said they were poorly advised, the application had to be completed online, and C could not have been assisted with a paper application. We found the Scottish Government were not responsible for ensuring C applied for the correct entitlements. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

The Scottish Government's response to C's complaint had, however, fallen below a reasonable standard. Appropriate records had not been kept and there was no evidence the Scottish Government had followed their complaint handling procedure. We upheld this complaint, and asked the Scottish Government to continue to provide evidence they were monitoring their complaints effectively and were able to identify delays. The Scottish Government were able to provide evidence showing the steps they had subsequently taken to improve their complaint handling.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to investigate their complaint in line with the Scottish Government's procedures. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Accurate and comprehensive records of complaints investigations need to be kept.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the way that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) handled their application for criminal injuries compensation. We were not critical of the length of time taken to progress C’s application. However, we found that C’s expectations were not appropriately managed regarding how often they could expect updates on the progress of their application and regarding when or if they could expect to receive acknowledgements of correspondence. We upheld this aspect of C’s complaint.

C also complained about how the CICA had handled their complaint. We found that the CICA complaints procedure does not comply with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure. In particular:

- the customer-facing complaint handling procedure does not explain the three stage process that they follow or set out the timescales for each stage of the process.

- the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority did not provide a thorough and robust response to C’s Stage 2 complaint.

- the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority incorrectly signposted C to complain to the SPSO via an MP (which is not a requirement for bringing a complaint to the SPSO).

We upheld C’s complaint about the way their complaint was handled.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to manage C’s expectations regarding how often they could expect updates on the progress of their application; failing to manage C’s expectations regarding when or if they could expect to receive acknowledgements of their correspondence; failing to handle C's complaints in a way that complied with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure; failing to provide a thorough and robust response to C’s stage 2 complaint; and incorrectly signposting them to complain to the SPSO via an MP. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Applicants should be informed regarding how often they can expect updates on the progress of their application.
• Applicants should be informed regarding when or if they can expect to receive acknowledgements of their correspondence.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The organisation’s complaints procedures should comply with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure https://www.spso.org.uk/the-model-complaints-handling-procedures.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C joined the Fair Start Scotland programme (an employment support service which aims to help voluntary participants find work). Fair Start Scotland is delivered on behalf of the Scottish Government. C complained about the service they received while on the programme.

We noted that there were gaps in the records (particularly regarding the offer of opportunities and placements and the qualifications requested by C), and that the service C received under the Fair Start Scotland programme was not in line with the standards of the programme (specifically the requirement to ensure the records detail the level of support offered and outcome of discussions). Therefore we upheld C’s complaint. As the Scottish Government had already apologised to C for the failings and had taken appropriate action to address the failings identified, we did not make any further recommendations regarding this particular complaint.

C also complained that the Scottish Government (and their providers) did not take into account their legal requirements under health and safety and equalities legislation. We did not find any failings regarding the health and safety legislation. However, we found that there was no evidence that C was offered IT adjustments to support their job searching activities. The Equality Act 2010 places a legal duty on service providers and public authorities to make reasonable adjustments. This duty is anticipatory and organisations should proactively offer adjustments (rather than waiting for the individual to request an adjustment). We noted that the Scottish Government acknowledged that Fair Start Scotland should have offered to make IT adjustments to support C’s job searching activities and there was no record this happened. We considered that, where appropriate, participants on the Fair Start Scotland programme should be proactively offered reasonable adjustments to enable them to participate in the programme and this offer should be recorded. We upheld C’s complaint in this regard.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for not proactively offering them IT adjustments to support their job searching activities. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Where appropriate, participants on the Fair Start Scotland programme should be proactively offered reasonable adjustments to enable them to participate in the programme and this offer should be recorded.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained to us about the actions of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in relation to a site near their home. They said that SEPA failed to adhere to their guidance in relation to the information required to carry out a risk assessment for the site. We found that SEPA were entitled to reach an initial decision that no further assessment was required on the site based on the information they held at that time. There was no evidence that they did not adhere to their guidance in relation to the matter and we did not uphold the complaint.

C also complained that SEPA failed to ensure that adequate site investigations were carried out for the site and that they took into account unreliable information. We found that the decisions made by SEPA, based on additional information that had been provided to them and on a basis of a site visit, were decisions that they were entitled to take. We did not uphold this complaint. However, we found that SEPA should have informed C that they were unable to open the videos/photos that C submitted. We provided feedback to SEPA about this matter.