Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Mr C's daughter appealed to the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) about her results in two subjects. Her appeals were not upheld. Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter to the SQA about the procedures they had followed and that they had not examined apparent administrative errors in the recording of her marks. The SQA investigated and responded to additional points of clarification that Mr C asked for, but he did not think their responses were clear or addressed his concerns. He also asked about the papers for one of her subjects which appeared to be missing. The SQA admitted they were unable to trace the documents and outlined the steps they would take to ensure there would be no recurrence.

From our investigation, we were satisfied that the SQA provided reasonable responses to Mr C's representations. The responses included explaining their quality assurance processes, confirming that the original marking of the examinations had been to the national standard, confirming that following the appeal they were satisfied the marks awarded were correct and that there had been no mistakes in the marking of the examinations. They had also responded to Mr C's concerns about the loss of documents and had explained the action taken to improve their processes.

Summary

Mr C sat an exam that was provided by an awarding body regulated by SQA Accreditation (part of the Scottish Qualifications Authority that regulates awarding bodies and accredits their qualifications). There was a problem with the exam and because of this all the marks, including Mr C's, were voided. Mr C complained to SQA Accreditation about how the awarding body dealt with his complaint. As Mr C was not happy with SQA Accreditation's response, he complained to us.

We found that it was appropriate for SQA Accreditation to have considered the awarding body's handling of the matter by referring to the most recent SQA Accreditation Regulatory Principles. However, we found that SQA Accreditation's complaints procedure did not comply with the model complaints handling procedure (CHP) that organisations under our jurisdiction must follow. We also found that SQA Accreditation did not respond to each agreed point of Mr C's complaint separately. It would have been good practice to explain to Mr C what SQA Accreditation could or could not look at, answer each of the specific points of complaint that were agreed with him, and set out the key evidence on which their conclusions were based. In addition, there were insufficient records of phone calls made during SQA Accreditation's handling of Mr C's complaint, and they did not advise Mr C clearly about how to take his complaint further. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SQA:

• provide us with a response to the outstanding points of Mr C's complaint;
• share the findings of our investigation with staff, to learn from the failings identified in the handling of Mr C's complaint; and
• ensure that SQA Accreditation's complaints procedure is compliant with the model CHP.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) failed to engage with him and his representative in respect of bird collision avoidance rates for wind turbines. He was concerned that SNH would not provide him with the specific figures he needed to allow him to submit an application for turbines and he was also unhappy with the way they dealt with his complaint.

We found that there was a long period where SNH had failed to respond to Mr C's representative, which had been acknowledged by SNH earlier, and we upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, we did not uphold his concerns about the figures he needed as we concluded that, although SNH are committed to continually updating the figures they publish, they are not required to do so specifically at the request of a developer. We also noted that they had agreed to produce updated figures for the species Mr C was interested in (which they have now done). We also found that SNH had dealt with Mr C's complaint in line with their procedures.

Summary

Mr C had complained to a local authority about their services. When they did not investigate his complaint he asked a councillor to review the matter. The councillor felt that this would go beyond his remit and declined to become involved. Mr C complained about the councillor to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland (the commissioner). Mr C alleged that the councillor's code of conduct had been breached. The commissioner investigated Mr C's complaint and concluded that there had been no breach. Mr C subsequently complained to us that the commissioner had investigated a different complaint to the one he had raised, had accepted evidence that was not relevant to his complaint and had taken an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the code of conduct.

We found that, whilst the commissioner's summary of Mr C's complaint was different to the point he had raised, his concerns were addressed fully in the commissioner's decision. We were satisfied that the commissioner reached his decision having followed guidance as to how the code of conduct should be interpreted and that he had carried out the investigation reasonably.

Summary

Mr C, who is an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A) about development on a site close to his home. Mr A was the former owner of the site and still held licenses from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in relation to it. Mr A complained that works on the site were affecting his private water supply but that SEPA had done little to prevent this. He also complained that when planning applications were made to the local council, SEPA did not make a reasonable response and had understated information. Furthermore, he said that they did not make a reasonable response to his concerns about the licenses he held.

We investigated the complaint and found that SEPA had looked into Mr A's concerns but found no evidence to suggest that his water supply had been detrimentally affected. The developer had been required to apply for a license and submit data and testing information. Mr A was given appropriate advice. We also found that SEPA had made comments on the planning applications and that while Mr A would have preferred them to have made objections, this was a matter for their discretion based on their officers' professional opinion. Accordingly, these complaints were not upheld. However, we found that SEPA had unduly delayed in responding to Mr A's queries about his licenses and for this reason upheld this part of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a decision Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) had made about the steps he could take to control animals on his land. His concern was that animals were causing damage and, while SNH permitted him to cull a specific number of them, he was unhappy that they restricted this number. Mr C felt SNH had been more concerned about being seen to have taken a balanced approach than by making an evidence-based decision (SNH had explained to Mr C that they have a duty to take a balanced approach to such matters).

We considered whether there was maladministration in SNH's decision-making process. Their guidance explained that they had to take a balanced approach and pointed to the various factors they were to consider. Although Mr C felt they had not taken specific concerns into account, SNH's guidance explained that it was not for SNH to be experts in the areas he had pointed to. As a result, the evidence showed that they had considered the relevant factors in reaching their position and there was fundamental disagreement with Mr C about their decision.

While we recognised that this was an important matter for Mr C, and that he was fully entitled to disagree with SNH, we considered the evidence indicated that they had made a decision they were entitled to have made. As there was no maladministration, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) had failed to investigate his complaint that his neighbour's septic tank was discharging unsafely into a roadside ditch and that it was, on occasion, flooding his back garden. Mr C said his submission to SEPA had been ignored and SEPA had refused to test the discharge. Mr C also complained that SEPA could not show that the consent to discharge granted in 1968 was being properly adhered to.

SEPA said their officers had investigated Mr C's complaint in line with their procedures, which allowed officers to take discretionary decisions on the extent of any investigation carried out. The site had been visited three times, with no evidence found by officers to justify further testing. Although the issues around the conditions attached to the consent to discharge had not been raised by Mr C initially, SEPA did not agree the conditions were being breached and said there was no evidence to that effect.

We found that SEPA had followed their procedures correctly in investigating the complaint. The procedures allowed their officers to exercise their professional judgement, which they had done in a reasonable fashion and which they had extensively documented at the time. We did not find they had failed to respond to Mr C's complaints and, although we accepted that he did not agree with their conclusions, this was not sufficient to constitute maladministration.

Summary

Mr C complained that maps used by Forestry Commission Scotland (the commission) in a consultation included inaccurate information about his land. The commission investigated, concluded that the maps were inaccurate, provided Mr C and statutory consultees with accurate maps, and updated the documents relating to the consultation on their website. Mr C remained dissatisfied and brought his complaints to us. We decided that the commission's actions had not been unreasonable and did not uphold his complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that during an interview with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), an officer made inappropriate remarks. He also complained that the time taken to investigate his allegations against a number of police officers was unreasonably protracted, and that he was not kept up to date on progress.

Our investigation was unable to establish whether the remarks Mr C complained about had been made by the officer in question. Regarding communication during the investigation of Mr C's allegations, we found that there were failings by the COPFS over several months. However, the COPFS had apologised to Mr C for this and undertaken to update him regularly. After that point, communication between the COPFS and Mr C was regular. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Ms C owns a childcare business. She initially set the business up with her daughter (Miss A) and registered the partnership with the Care Inspectorate. Miss A subsequently left the business and Ms C's son (Mr A) joined as her partner. This partnership change came to light during a routine Care Inspectorate inspection visit. Ms C was advised that the registered partnership (of her and Miss A) was no longer valid. She would have to de-register and re-register the new partnership with Mr A. It took several months for this to happen, during which time Ms C was uncertain as to the status of her business. She had been advised by her insurers that if she did not have a valid registration, her insurance would be invalid. Despite attempts to clarify the situation with the Care Inspectorate, Ms C was unable to do so and she had to close her business for two days while the re-registration was completed.

We found that Ms C was appropriately advised to de-register and re-register. However, the information she was given regarding her company's status in the meantime was unclear. Whilst the Care Inspectorate had clarified the situation internally, they advised Ms C to seek legal advice and to confer with her insurers. Whilst this advice was not unreasonable, we were disappointed with the lack of a clear answer from the Care Inspectorate as to whether or not Ms C's company was currently registered with them. As the industry regulator and the organisation responsible for registering care services, we felt this was poor. We were also critical of the Care Inspectorate's handling of Ms C's formal complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Care Inspectorate:

• apologise to Ms C for the poor communication in response to her enquiries;
• pay Ms C the sum of £500 for the time and trouble that she had to go to to pursue this matter; and
• review their handling of Ms C's complaint with a view to identifying opportunities for improving the process of agreeing the wording of complaints and completing investigations within the published timescales.