Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Mrs C was required to attend court on two occasions as a witness, and a victim, of charges relating to assault and threatening behaviour. Mrs C was identified as a vulnerable witness, and arrangements were made for statutory special measures to support her in giving evidence, namely witness screens and a witness supporter. However, outside the courtroom the accused was able to move freely throughout the courthouse, except for the witness waiting room.

Mrs C said that she tried to stay in the witness room for her own safety, but that she had to leave at some points as there were no toilets in the room, and she was also required to leave at lunchtime, when the court building closed. Mrs C said the accused waited outside the court building on one occasion, and also approached her and intimidated her within the court building.

Mrs C first complained about her experience to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), who told her that security within the court building was the responsibility of the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service (SCTS). She then complained to the SCTS. While the SCTS said they were restricted by the physical layout of the building, they also said that they could have made other arrangements, in addition to the statutory special measures. SCTS said these arrangements could have included:

• providing a separate access route, or working with police colleagues to stagger departure times;
• providing access to a different toilet; and
• arranging for Mrs C to remain within the building during lunchtime.

SCTS said these arrangements were not provided because they were not made aware by COPFS, or Witness Support, of any particular issues of intimidation or harassment.

After investigating this matter we found that COPFS and SCTS each gave different versions of the process that should be followed for notifying SCTS of the need for additional arrangements, aside from statutory special measures. Neither organisation gave evidence that their version of the process had been agreed between the two, and we were not able to conclude that either version was correct.

We considered that it was unreasonable of both organisations that they did not have a clear and shared understanding of this process, given that they are jointly responsible for working together to support and protect vulnerable witnesses. We upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that arrangements were not put in place to avoid contact between her and the accused. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• There should be a clear process for COPFS to communicate to SCTS where they consider a witness would benefit from additional arrangements in the court building, such as arrangements to avoid contact with the accused.

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

Mr C was unhappy with a review carried out by consultants for Scottish Canals about moorings and licence prices. Mr C sent feedback to a consultation on the review, and he complained to Scottish Canals.

We explained to Mr C that, by law, we must not investigate action relating to the determination of the amount of any rent or service charge. This meant we could not investigate the evidence base for pricing, or what berthing fees should be charged. However, we did look at how Scottish Canals handled Mr C’s complaint.

We found that Scottish Canals responded to Mr C’s complaint in line with their complaints handling procedure. We found that their responses to Mr C were reasonable. We found evidence that Scottish Canals considered Mr C’s complaint and provided reasoned and rational responses. Given this, we did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). Mrs C was required to attend court on two occasions as a witness and victim of charges relating to assault and threatening behaviour. She was identified as a vulnerable witness and arrangements were made for statutory special measures to support her in giving evidence, namely witness screens and a witness supporter. However, outside the courtroom the accused was able to move freely throughout the courthouse (except for the witness waiting room).

Mrs C said she tried to stay in the witness room for her own safety, but had to leave at some point as there were no toilets in the room. She was also required to leave at lunchtime when the court building closed. Mrs C said the accused waited outside the court building on one occasion, and also approached her and intimidated her within the court building.

Mrs C complained about her experience to COPFS, who told her that security within the court building was the responsibility of the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service (SCTS). She then complained to the SCTS. The SCTS said they were restricted by the physical layout of the building, but they also said that they could have made additional arrangements (in addition to the statutory special measures). They said that this could have included:

• providing a separate access route, or working with police colleagues to stagger departure times;
• providing access to a different toilet; and
• arranging for her to remain within the building during lunchtime.

SCTS said these arrangements were not provided because they were not made aware by COPFS or Witness Support (a voluntary organisation) of any particular need. In response to our enquiries, COPFS said they had identified Mrs C’s concerns on the Vulnerable Witness Application, so the SCTS would have been aware of these. However, the SCTS said that this application only related to the statutory special measures and they were not made aware of any particular issues of intimidation or harassment.

After investigating this matter, we upheld Mrs C’s complaint. We found that COPFS and SCTS each gave different versions of the process that should be followed for notifying SCTS of the need for additional arrangements outside of statutory special measures. Neither organisation gave evidence that their version of the process had been agreed between the two and we were not able to conclude that either version was correct.

We considered it was unreasonable for both organisations to not have a clear and shared understanding of this process given that they are jointly responsible for working together to support and protect vulnerable witnesses. We noted that COPFS had now introduced a cover sheet to the Vulnerable Witness Application to include some additional information about witnesses when communicating with SCTS. However, this did not include a specific field or prompt for noting the type of concern that arose in this case.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that arrangements were not put in place to avoid contact between her and the accused, and for the delay in responding to her complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• There should be a clear process for COPFS to communicate to SCTS where they consider a witness would benefit from additional arrangements in the court building (such as arrangements to avoid contact with the accused).

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Written responses should normally be sent within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint.

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

Mrs C had a new heating system installed by a contractor working on behalf of the Scottish Government. Mrs C complained that the contractor required her to lift additional flooring in her home, which was not agreed at the pre-installation survey.

We found that while the need to lift additional flooring was not agreed at the survey, Mrs C signed a document on the day of the survey which stated that it was her responsibility to lift any specialist flooring. The document also stated that while every care would be taken to keep upheaval to a minimum, it might not be possible to carry out the installation without removing some of the flooring. In addition, the document stated that the contractor would not accept responsibility or be held liable for any damage to the flooring arising from the installation.

When the installation team visited, they found that Mrs C needed to lift more flooring than she originally thought. Although Mrs C was not expecting this, the paperwork she signed meant Mrs C was responsible for lifting the flooring should she want the installation to go ahead. We also noted that the contractor offered to replace the flooring in one of Mrs C's rooms as a gesture of goodwill. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's neighbours applied for and were granted by Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) a licence to discharge treated sewage effluent into a ditch on their property. Mrs C complained that this allowed discharge into a ditch that runs dry and causes dangerous pollution to be deposited on her land and severely impacts on her enjoyment of her property as well as having a dangerous adverse effect on human and animal health. SEPA could find no evidence of such a nuisance being caused.

Mrs C felt that SEPA did not do enough to assess the application and had not done enough to address her concerns about the actual operation of the scheme.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint as we concluded SEPA had taken reasonable steps to minimise the risk of a nuisance and were not the responsible body for enforcing such a nuisance (though we noted no nuisance had actually yet been proven to exist).

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the Care Inspectorate had published an inspection report on his nursery that was inaccurate. He stated that there were a large number of errors in both the draft report and the final published report. We found that although there had been errors in the draft report, there was a process in place to correct these and the corrections had been made in line with this process. Mr C said that a number of discussions referred to in the inspection report had not taken place, but there was evidence in the inspector's notes that a number of these issues were discussed. We found one minor error in the report in relation to snacks being provided by the nursery and asked the Care Inspectorate to amend this. However, other than this point, there was no evidence that the report was inaccurate and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the Care Inspectorate had failed to reasonably investigate and respond to his complaints. Whilst we were critical of the confusion caused by the comments made by a manager at a meeting with Mr C, we were satisfied that when Mr C subsequently requested clarification in relation to this matter, this was provided to him. We did not consider that another senior member of staff had misinterpreted the Care Inspectorate's own guidelines in an attempt to justify a requirement in the draft report, or that this member of staff's actions had been unreasonable when he met Mr C to discuss his complaint. We also considered that the Care Inspectorate had carried out a reasonable investigation into Mr C's complaint and we did not uphold his complaint to us about this matter.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Care Inspectorate:

• amend the paragraph in the inspection report available online in relation to snacks.

Summary

Mr C complained that administrative errors when marking his Advanced Higher exam papers had resulted in him narrowly missing out on achieving an A grade. The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) accepted that the wrong information was placed on their website in relation to the marking instructions for a particular question. However, we did not find evidence that Mr C's exam script had been assessed with these incorrect marking instructions or that he had been disadvantaged by this error. In relation to the marking of another question, it appeared that the original mark given had been amended to a lower mark. By law we cannot investigate matters of academic judgement and therefore we could not investigate why the mark was given, as it related to the academic judgement of the marker concerned. However, we were satisfied that the final mark given for this question was as stated on the exam paper.

Mr C also questioned why the same marker had both marked and reviewed his exam papers. We considered that the SQA in a communication with Mr C had given him an expectation that his scripts would be reviewed by a different individual. However, we also considered it was a matter for the SQA to decide how they operated the marking and review of examinations. We did not find evidence that the SQA's assessment processes were not followed in Mr C's case or that it was unreasonable for the same marker to have marked and reviewed Mr C's exam papers. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints about these matters.

Mr C also complained that the SQA failed to follow their complaints handling procedures and, instead, treated his complaint correspondence as enquiries and feedback. The SQA accepted they failed to treat Mr C's concerns as a complaint and apply their complaints procedure including a referral to this office. We considered the SQA's complaints handing was poor and upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SQA:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in relation to complaints handling;
• ensure that appropriate training in complaints handling is being undertaken by relevant staff and that the failings in complaints handling identified during this investigation have been shared with relevant staff, and provide this office with evidence of this; and
• issue Mr C with a formal apology for the expectation given to him in relation to the reviewing of examinations.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about how the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) responded to their enquiries. Mrs C contacted COPFS a number of times over the space of two months. After receiving some initial advice from them, including information that her enquiry had been passed on to another member of staff, she found it difficult to contact them.

COPFS said Mrs C had been incorrectly advised that her enquiry was being dealt with by another member of staff. They said they had given Mrs C advice, that they could not help her with her enquiry, and when she contacted them subsequently they had ignored her calls and emails.

When Mr and Mrs C complained to COPFS, they were told they could not be helped with their enquiry and that, under the unacceptable actions part of their complaints policy, COPFS would no longer respond to contact from Mr and Mrs C about the same issue.

We found that COPFS should have had a dedicated unacceptable actions policy. We also found that their complaints policy was not compliant with the SPSO model Complaints Handling Procedure. We upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaint as COPFS had unreasonably advised them that their enquiry was being dealt with and then failed to rectify their error. It was not acceptable to ignore Mr and Mrs C's calls and emails and we therefore upheld their complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that COPFS:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings identified;
• put in place a dedicated unacceptable actions policy to manage situations like this in the future; and
• ensure they have a complaints procedure that is compliant with the model Complaints Handling Procedure.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her mother-in-law (Mrs A) and her sister-in-law (Ms B) about the Crofting Commission's handling of an assignation application for the croft tenancy. The tenancy was held by Mrs A to be assigned to Ms B, who wished to take on the tenancy. Mrs C said that the commission made a number of errors in the processing of the application, which led to a delay in the completion of the assignation process.

Our investigation found that errors were made by the commission in their handling of the assignation application, but that these did not appear to have led to a delay in the processing of the application. We noted that the commission had already acknowledged these errors and that in general they appeared to have taken appropriate remedial action to address these. We therefore considered that the commission did not take unreasonably long to process the assignation application and we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

In recognition of costs involved in preparing Mrs C's complaint about areas where they had acknowledged failings on their part, the commission offered Mrs A a payment. The commission said that it was their understanding that the surveying costs and legal consultancy costs which Mrs C said Mrs A incurred were not as a result of the mistakes made by the commission. However, we considered that the breakdown of the costs submitted by Mrs C to the commission contained entries detailing extra work done which did not appear to relate solely to the preparation of the complaint about the commission's errors and made a recommendation in relation to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the commission:

• review the breakdown of costs Mrs C submitted to them and reconsider their offer of compensation in line with the terms set out in our decision and provide us with a copy of their findings.

Summary

Mr C complained about the handling by the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA) of his correspondence and complaint.

We found that SCRA did not fail to answer Mr C's questions, and they did not misrepresent his concerns. We did find that SCRA failed to respond to Mr C's initial correspondence and SCRA acknowledged and apologised for this. We also found that SCRA's response to Mr C's complaint did appear to end email correspondence with him unreasonably. We upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

In addition, we found that SCRA's final letter to Mr C did not comply with the SPSO Act 2002 in terms of information about the right to complain to us, so we made a recommendation to address this point.

Recommendations

We recommended that SCRA:

• reflect on the messages given to Mr C in their final communications, to ensure that such confusion does not arise in future; and
• ensure that final responses to complaints comply with section 22 of the SPSO Act 2002.