Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Ms C was involved with a court case that was not continued by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), and complained about this to them. Ms C then complained to us that COPFS ignored her phone calls and that their communication with her was unreasonable, specifically that two letters from COPFS were contradictory.

We found that Ms C had not complained to COPFS about all of the matters she brought to us. We also found that COPFS no longer had recordings of phone calls as they were kept for a limited time. In addition, it was not within our jurisdiction to determine whether COPFS' letters were or were not accurate as a matter of law and, therefore, we could not determine whether they were contradictory in that respect. In the circumstances, we could not reach findings on Ms C's complaints and we could not uphold them.

Summary

A nursery was inspected by the Care Inspectorate. Following production of the draft inspection report, the nursery contacted the Care Inspectorate to raise concerns about the inspection process. These concerns were addressed initially by the inspector's line manager. The nursery were not satisfied with the response received and they instructed their representative (Ms C) to raise a complaint on their behalf.

As well as raising concerns about the inspection process, Ms C complained about the way in which the nursery's initial concerns were dealt with. In particular she questioned the appropriateness of the line manager's role in the complaints process in light of their role in the inspection process. She also complained that the Care Inspectorate interviewed the inspectors as part of their complaints investigation but did not interview nursery staff. In addition, Ms C raised concerns that the Care Inspectorate delayed in responding to the nursery's complaint.

We identified areas where the Care Inspectorate had failed to respond to the complaint in line with their complaints handling procedure (CHP). While we did not consider it inappropriate for the line manager to have dealt with a complaint at stage 1 of the CHP (frontline resolution), we noted that the initial concerns were not dealt with under the CHP. As the concerns fitted with the Care Inspectorate's definition of a complaint, we considered that they should have been addressed in line with the CHP. We noted that the nursery initially indicated that they did not wish to formally complain; however the CHP contains provision for such a situation and the Care Inspectorate did not follow this. We noted that it is often good practice when carrying out interviews to interview both parties to a complaint. However, we were satisfied that the Care Inspectorate gave appropriate consideration to doing so and reasonably concluded that it would not have brought value to their investigation of this particular complaint. As the Care Inspectorate had initially given an indication that it was likely they would interview nursery staff, we considered that expectations could have been better managed in this regard.

In relation to the timescale for completing the investigation, we noted that this was unavoidably protracted for large parts, and that the CHP contains provision for extending certain complex investigations. However, such extensions should be fully explained to, and agreed with, the complainant and we did not consider that the Care Inspectorate took appropriate steps to do so. In addition, we noted that there was an initial delay in logging and acknowledging the complaint and, while there was regular correspondence thereafter, we noted that on one occasion the complainant was not contacted as promised. We therefore upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Care Inspectorate:

• remind staff of the action to take when a complainant does not wish a matter that is clearly in line with the Care Inspectorate's definition of a complaint to be considered under the CHP;
• remind staff that where extensions to investigation timescales are required, the reason for this should be fully explained to the complainant and their agreement sought;
• review their mail-receiving processes to ensure that incoming complaint correspondence is quickly identified and passed to the relevant area to be logged and actioned without delay;
• remind staff of the importance of managing complainants' expectations in terms of how their complaint will be investigated and of adhering to any undertakings to contact complainants; and
• apologise to the nursery for failing to handle their complaint in line with the CHP.

Summary

Mrs C made a complaint on behalf of her stepson (Mr A). He was unhappy with Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC)'s response to his service complaint about the way they dealt with a complaint about Police Scotland. In particular, Mr A said that in replying to his concerns, PIRC failed to follow statutory guidance and provided unreasonable responses about their failure to request CCTV footage and their recommendations.

We investigated the complaint and we found that although there were some minor discrepancies in PIRC's final complaint report for which apologies had been made, their response to Mr A's concerns about following statutory guidelines had been reasonable. Similarly, they had provided reasonable and appropriate replies about his concerns about CCTV footage and about the recommendations they had made in his complaint against Police Scotland. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) unreasonably rejected her compelling personal reasons supporting her appeal for student funding.

We found that 'compelling personal reasons' was a phrase used by other student funding bodies and on websites giving advice on student funding, but it was not used by SAAS. Miss C had already been allocated all of the funding she was entitled to, and she did not meet the criteria for any funding concessions. Therefore, there was no further funding SAAS could award her. While Miss C was entitled to submit an appeal to SAAS, she did not meet their grounds for appeal and, therefore, her appeal was rejected by SAAS. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of Miss A about the time it took for the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) to carry out a fitness to practise investigation after allegations were raised about Miss A's conduct. The investigation took 15 months. Ms C also complained that the SSSC did not keep Miss A informed of the progress of their investigation.

In responding to the complaint, the SSSC indicated to both Miss A and Ms C that there had been problems with obtaining statements from witnesses. The SSSC also acknowledged that Miss A had not always been kept informed of the progress of her case.

The SSSC told us that significant matters had affected their investigation of the case. These matters included the performance of individuals who had dealt with Miss A's case and the capacity of the department at the time.

While we identified that Miss A had delayed initially in responding to the SSSC's request for comments on the allegations, over a period of seven months little investigation work was carried out. We considered that a more structured approach to exploring the evidence, along with arranging interviews and statements, should have taken place sooner.

We found that the level of activity on the case appeared disproportionate to the 15 months it took to reach a decision. We were also critical of a lack of communication with Miss C about the progress of the investigation. We therefore upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SSSC:

• issue Miss A with a written apology for the failings identified;
• demonstrate to us that clear mechanisms are in place to ensure any protracted period of inactivity on a particular case is identified and addressed; and
• demonstrate to us that effective mechanisms are in place to ensure case workers routinely inform registrants about the progress of their case.

Summary

Miss C complained to us about the length of time it took for the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) to carry out an investigation following her informing them of an offence with which she had been charged. She also complained about the lack of information provided to her by the SSSC on the progress of their investigation.

After Miss C contacted the SSSC to query the delay, they apologised to her and said that their investigation could have been concluded around a month earlier had they pursued information needed from her employer and from the court service sooner. In the course of our investigation, the SSSC told us that matters such as increased case numbers and challenges with staffing had contributed to their handling of the case.

We considered that there was a substantial delay of four months during which there was very little action on the case. Although the SSSC have procedures in place for monitoring and supervising investigation work on a monthly basis, we did not see any evidence of a timely discussion of the case. We also found that over a period of five months, Miss C only received information about her case when she contacted the SSSC. The SSSC were unable to provide an explanation for this. SSSC procedures state that staff need to keep registrants informed of progress and also to plan communication when periods of inactivity are likely. We concluded that there was a failure to keep Miss C reasonably informed during the investigation process. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaints and made three recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that SSSC:

• demonstrate to us that clear mechanisms are in place to ensure that any protracted period of inactivity on a particular case (such as non-responses to information requests) is identified and addressed;
• demonstrate to us that effective mechanisms are in place to ensure that case workers routinely inform registrants about the progress of their case in accordance with the fitness to practise casework procedures; and
• issue a written apology to Miss C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C applied for and was awarded student funding, including a dependants' grant, for the academic year 2014/15 by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS). When she applied the following year, the dependants' grant was not awarded. Mrs C contacted SAAS to find out why she did not qualify for the dependants' grant, and SAAS noted during the call that her husband's income was quite high and that dependants' grant was usually only paid where a partner's income was very low. SAAS then wrote to Mrs C and told her that she had been overpaid for the year 2014/15 and had to repay the dependants' grant she had received, incorrectly, on the basis of the information she had provided.

Mrs C questioned that she had provided the wrong information to SAAS. She said that she had answered all the questions honestly and had provided evidence of her husband's earnings for the tax year ending April 2014.

We obtained information from SAAS about the questions Mrs C had been asked when completing the online application. In the dependants' grant section, we found that Mrs C had clearly been asked to declare her husband's 'total income' for the coming year and that she had entered an incorrect figure.

We were satisfied that SAAS could not have assessed the dependants' grant on the basis of Mrs C's husband's past income because the grant was awarded on an estimate of the current year's income rather than on past earnings. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Miss A) that the Scottish Qualifications Authority had acted unreasonably by failing to follow their marking review procedure in relation to elements of Miss A's Higher Drama exam.

Miss A failed her Higher Drama exam. Her school asked the SQA to review her results. The SQA reviewed her written assessment, but Mr C was unhappy that they did not review the performance aspect of the examination too.

Following our investigation, we established that the marking of the question paper of Miss A's Higher Drama exam had been reviewed within the post-results service offered by the SQA, however, the performance elements had only been given a clerical check (the marks were not reviewed). We were satisfied that the SQA procedure was that centres could opt to record the performing exams. This offers pupils the opportunity to enter into the full marking review process in relation to a review of the performance element. However, recording was not mandatory and centres who chose not to record the performing exam could still request a review of the question paper. Miss A's school had not opted to record the performance and, therefore, they were unable to enter into the full marking review process in relation to the performance elements of her assessment. We were satisfied that the SQA had made centres (including schools) aware of this before the exam. In light of this, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) had produced guidelines for allocating bursary funding which were discriminatory. Mr C received an occupational pension following early retirement due to ill health and believed this should be considered as a disability benefit and not included in the calculation of his household income. Mr C said he believed the SFC had not drafted their bursary guidelines in keeping with the relevant equality legislation. Mr C also complained that his complaint to the SFC had not been properly handled.

The SFC stated that different areas of income were taken into account in the guidance on student support assessments. They had provided a detailed explanation of the various types of income and the way they were assessed. The SFC said they had not initially considered Mr C's correspondence as a complaint, but they accepted this could have been handled more proactively and they had taken steps to address this.

We took independent advice from an equalities adviser. The adviser said that the SFC had fulfilled their obligation under equalities legislation to consider the impact of their bursary policy and guidelines on individuals who were in receipt of occupational pensions. In light of this, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We upheld Mr C's complaint about the way SFC had dealt with his complaint. However, the SFC had provided evidence that they had taken proportionate and robust steps to address this failing, so we did not make any recommendations about their complaints process, though we did ask them to apologise to Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failure to respond appropriately to the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a number of actions of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). Most were beyond our jurisdiction but Mr C also complained about how COPFS had responded to his complaint. We considered that, in their response, COPFS had addressed the issues Mr C complained of, gave him accurate information and reached views that, though Mr C disagreed with, they had discretion to reach. Consequently, we did not uphold his complaint about COPFS' complaints handling.