Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Mrs C complained about two inspections at the residential care home her mother (Mrs A) lived in. Mrs C felt it was unreasonable for the Care Inspectorate to say in their inspection report that the privacy and dignity of residents could be compromised when bedroom doors were left open. Mrs C said Mrs A preferred to have her door open so she could see what was going on and chat to visitors and passers-by. She said inspectors could have discovered this by speaking to her mother.

Mrs C said the Care Inspectorate's response to her complaint failed to take into account one of the inspection reports she complained about. We found the Care Inspectorate had agreed a list of six complaints for investigation with Mrs C. It was for the investigator to decide what weight to give different pieces of evidence. We found the Care Inspectorate made their position in respect of Mrs A's bedroom door very clear. They recognised that Mrs A's preference was to have her door open. However, this should have been discussed and recorded in Mrs A's care records, which it was not. They accepted that the report could have been better worded.

Mrs C said it had taken the Care Inspectorate too long to log and respond to her complaint. We found Mrs C's complaint was appropriately logged and acknowledged. The Care Inspectorate acted in accordance with their complaints procedure in meeting with Mrs C, in an attempt to resolve her concerns. At the end of the meeting, they quite reasonably checked whether Mrs C wanted to progress to the investigation stage. However, it took too long to respond to Mrs C's complaint at each stage of the process and we upheld Mrs C's complaint on the basis of delay.

Summary

Mr C contacted the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) about an appeal concerning an application for a wind farm. His complaint was about the DPEA's handling of the appeal. Specifically, he believed that all the submissions he had made when the application was with the planning authority had not been considered by the DPEA; his correspondence had not been responded to during the appeal process; a deadline date if he wished to take the next step of appeal to the Court of Session had not been provided; there had been a delay following the decision to respond to his correspondence; and that the DPEA had failed to respond fully and accurately to his complaint.

Following our investigation, we found that, although after the appeal was decided Mr C had sent the DPEA an email of the representations he sent to the planning authority about the planning application for a wind farm, the DPEA were not aware of this email earlier. This was because it had not been part of the documents provided by the planning authority. Mr C did not know this, but we concluded the DPEA were not at fault because they were not made aware of Mr C's email until he contacted them after the appeal had been decided. We found that the DPEA had failed to respond on two occasions to emails sent by Mr C. The failure had been recognised on one occasion but not on the other, and we recommended an apology in recognition of this. We did not comment on the subject of the email, except to suggest that it would have been an opportunity to provide an explanation about the process (site visit).

On the advice given by the DPEA about the deadline for an appeal to the Court of Session, we found that advice about the timescale was given properly in the decision letter and in response to Mr C's emails. However, we suggested to the DPEA that they consider improvements in their engagement with interested parties about the appeal process by better signposting, and by producing an information leaflet. We found that Mr C's complaint was not handled in accordance with the DPEA's complaints procedure as a response was not sent within the target time, and no explanation had been provided to him for the delay.

Recommendations

We recommended that the DPEA:

• apologise to Mr C for the failure to respond to an email he sent;
• consider improvements to the information provided to interested parties by signposting to their website and making an information leaflet available; and
• apologise to Mr C for the administrative errors identified in their complaints handling procedure in place at the time.

Summary

Ms C complained to the Care Inspectorate about the care home her father was staying in. She complained about a range of issues, including how often bedding was changed, concerns about electric reclining chairs, and the lack of a care plan for her father. The Care Inspectorate responded to her complaints (they upheld one of her complaints, but did not uphold the others), and Ms C then complained to us that they had failed to properly investigate her complaint.

Our investigation examined whether or not the Care Inspectorate followed their normal process in investigating Ms C's complaint, and whether or not they clearly informed her of the outcome. We found that they followed their complaints handling procedure properly. They acknowledged Ms C's complaint and issued a decision within the appropriate timescales, and informed her of her right to request a review. When she made this request they reviewed their decision and, again, issued her with a final decision within correct timescales. It was clear from the information provided to us that the Care Inspectorate planned and carried out a comprehensive investigation, and communicated their findings clearly. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

After Mr C submitted a planning application, the planning authority concerned consulted Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) about the application. Although Mr C accepted that consultation with SNH was a valid part of the planning process, he felt their contact with the planning authority was excessive and inappropriate. We found that the evidence showed that SNH had a role to play in Mr C’s application and that they were in regular contact with the planning authority. As part of our investigation we also took independent advice from our planning adviser who was of the view that SNH’s contact was not inappropriate. Although we took account of Mr C’s concerns, we agreed that the evidence did not indicate inappropriate discussions or collusion with the planning authority.

Mr C also felt SNH’s consultation response contained inaccurate information which, in his view, caused the planning authority to refuse permission. The evidence indicated that although SNH originally felt that if Mr C’s application was to be granted he should take some additional steps, they softened their position after the planning authority refused the application. Our adviser confirmed that SNH had acted in line with the precautionary approach detailed in Scottish Government guidance and we also considered it clear that SNH’s consultation response was not the sole reason for refusing the application. Viewed as a whole, we did not consider the evidence showed that SNH unreasonably submitted inaccurate information.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) handled his funding application unreasonably. He was in extended correspondence with them before formally complaining and, after he did so, he was also unhappy at their handling of his complaint. Mr C had raised two unsuccessful court actions – both funded by SLAB – and was considering raising a third. SLAB then funded a legal opinion about the possible third action, which Mr C wished to discuss with his legal representatives. However, SLAB refused to fund that and Mr C felt that this was unreasonable.

We cannot question SLAB’s discretionary decision making without maladministration in their decision-making process. SLAB’s guidance said matters would be judged on their own merits, but that they would also consider the steps that a private client of modest means would take. It also said a recipient of legal aid should not be put in a better position than such a private client. We considered the guidance meant SLAB had to use an element of judgment and, although Mr C felt a private client would have paid for the consultation, that was as much a matter of interpretation as SLAB’s position. We recognised the significance of this for Mr C, but his disagreement with SLAB’s decision did not mean there had been maladministration in their decision-making process. We did not uphold this complaint.

We had originally upheld Mr C’s second complaint because, on the basis of the paperwork originally available, SLAB had not responded to one of his letters. However, SLAB then contacted us to say that they had actually responded to Mr C and gave us a copy of their response. Although they had replied to Mr C, we maintained our original decision to uphold Mr C’s complaint because we felt our initial contact with SLAB had made them aware of Mr C’s concerns about their complaints handling. In any event, we had then formally requested all relevant documents from them and, at that point, they confirmed in writing that they had given us everything (although it turned out that this piece of correspondence was missing).

Summary

Mr C's wife (Mrs C) is a landlord. Mr C complained on her behalf about the way the panel handled a referral made to them by her tenant concerning the landlord's duty to meet the repairing standard under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006. Mr C was unhappy with the administrative handling of the matter and complained that, by the time he was advised about the referral, the tenant had left the property and the repairs required to the property had been completed. He was also unhappy with the handling of his correspondence, that the panel had failed to advise him of progress on the case, and that they had failed to notify him about the possibility of mediation. He also complained that they had failed to deal with his complaint under their complaints process.

The panel are subject to legislative provisions which govern their procedures. We were satisfied that based on the available evidence the panel had processed the referral made to them by the tenant in line with relevant legislation and did not uphold the complaint. The panel had accepted that they had failed to reply to some correspondence and, as a result, had failed to keep Mr C advised of progress on the matter. We were, however, satisfied that in this case, mediation had not been appropriate. Finally, while the panel had responded to Mr C's complaint, we noted that they had failed to clarify what stage in their process Mr C had reached and failed to advise him of his right to come to this office at the conclusion of the process.

Recommendations

We recommended that the panel:

• remind staff of the need to explain to complainants early in the process what stage their complaint is at and ensure they are notified of their right to complain to the SPSO at the conclusion of the complaints process.

Summary

Mr C’s wife (Mrs C) died in April 2011, and the Procurator Fiscal (PF) investigated her death. They decided that they needed to retain some of Mrs C's organs for tests to establish the cause of her death, and told Mr C this by letter. Mr C did not wish to finalise his wife's funeral arrangements until he knew that her organs had been returned. When the funeral directors contacted the mortuary they found that the organs had been returned – they told Mr C this and the funeral then took place.

Between 2011 and 2013 the PF instructed a number of medical experts to confirm the cause of Mrs C's death, during which time her death certificate was amended in light of clinical opinion. A final conclusion was reached in early 2013, and the family met with the PF and a medical expert in June 2013 to discuss his conclusions. The family were told the death certificate had to be amended again and that the PF would arrange this.

By December 2013 the family had heard nothing, and Mr C complained to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). The death certificate was amended in January 2014, but Mr C did not receive a response to his complaint until he followed it up a few weeks later. Meanwhile, he received information from National Records of Scotland that indicated COPFS had supplied them with incorrect information. Mr C raised this with COPFS, who apologised immediately.

We investigated Mr C's complaints and found that COPFS had not told him that Mrs C's organs had been returned; the time taken to decide the cause of Mrs C's death and to arrange for her death certificate to be altered was unreasonable; COPFS sent an incorrect document to Mr C's solicitor and referred incorrectly to Mrs C in correspondence, so we upheld Mr C’s complaints about all of these matters.

Although we did not uphold some of Mr C’s complaints relating to a specific meeting with COPFS, we did make some recommendations about how such sensitive meetings should be recorded in future. We also did not uphold Mr C’s complaint about an enquiry he made to COPFS in 2011 as, due to the passage of time, we did not have any evidence to consider this point.

Recommendations

We recommended that COPFS:

• advise relatives when an organ examination is complete and seek instruction regarding the disposal of the organ as part of their procedure for organ retention;
• devise and implement procedures for the identification, contracting, monitoring, etc of medical experts and provide us with copies of these and evidence of their implementation;
• devise and implement procedures for the regular updating of relatives when a death is being investigated;
• take steps to ensure that minutes of sensitive meetings, such as that held with Mrs C’s family, are properly taken and, where requested, circulated to all attendees before being finalised and clearly record, where appropriate, the role of attendees where
• apologise to Mr C that a document was generated and provided to his solicitor incorrectly referring to a case against his late wife;
• devise and implement a receipt for specific use in death investigation cases, to ensure that inappropriate criminal case disclosure receipts are not provided to grieving relatives or their representatives;
• take steps to ensure that when notes or minutes are taken of sensitive meetings, such as that held with Mrs C’s family, such notes should clearly record whether any actions were agreed;
• ensure that amendments to death certificates are undertaken in a timely manner and that responsible officers are automatically reminded of the need to progress such arrangements; and
• alert staff to the repeated reference to Mrs C as Mr C's mother in COPFS correspondence, remind staff of the sensitivity of such communications and the effects that such errors can have on grieving relatives.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Office of the Public Guardian (Scotland) (the OPG) dealt with his complaint inadequately. Mr C said there was a delay in the OPG dealing with his enquiry, that they got a relative's name wrong throughout the complaint, and that they did not answer specific questions he asked.

We looked at the OPG's file on Mr C's complaint, and asked for their comments. The OPG explained, as they had done to Mr C, that their involvement in a guardianship case ends with the death of the adult and the discharge of the guardian. In Mr C's case, both of these events happened some time before he contacted them. Despite this, in an effort to be helpful, the OPG responded to Mr C's enquiry, doing so after a summary review of the relevant case file. In their response, they explained to Mr C that they were only carrying out a summary review, although Mr C was not satisfied with this. They also apologised for getting the relative's name wrong, and for the delay in responding to Mr C.

We found that the OPG had dealt with Mr C's complaint reasonably, as although Mr C was unhappy with the summary response, this was more than they were required to provide given the time that had passed since their involvement in guardianship matters had come to an end. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Historic Scotland were invited to provide a view on a planning application, as a statutory consultee. Mr C complained that they failed to evidence the view they provided on this, and also said that in responding to his complaint, they had altered the wording of his complaints.

We did not uphold either of Mr C's complaints. We found that Historic Scotland were not required to record their decision-making process any more thoroughly than they had done, and that, although Mr C disagreed with their view, it was reasonable and there was a clear process of how it was reached. We also found that while it would have been preferable for Historic Scotland to have informed Mr C of their proposed re-wording of his complaints, his concerns had been answered in full.

Summary

Mr C was a witness in a court case, but the case did not proceed on the day he attended court. Mr C said the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) told him that one of the reasons for the case not taking place was because of a procurator fiscal's understanding that witnesses were not present. Mr C complained about this to COPFS but was not satisfied with their response, so he complained to us that COPFS failed to adequately investigate his complaint and respond to it.

We found that, as COPFS had told Mr C, the procurator fiscal who dealt with the court case was not at work when COPFS responded to Mr C's complaint. COPFS told us that they could not give Mr C details about the procurator fiscal's absence, as it was confidential personal information. The evidence showed that, in the absence of the procurator fiscal, COPFS had looked at the notes from the relevant day in court, and had contacted court staff. We were satisfied that, in the circumstances, COPFS had adequately investigated Mr C's complaint and responded to him. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.