Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Mr C complained that although Registers of Scotland (RoS) confirmed that they had made an error that affected his family's title to property, they refused to honour an agreement to compensate him for the loss or to fix the error. He also alleged that he had been asked by RoS to obtain a valuation of the ground concerned to assist in his claim against them but they later denied this. He was also unhappy with the way his complaint was handled.

We investigated the complaint, considered all the relevant information, including appropriate legislation, and made enquiries of RoS. Our investigation found that RoS had, in 2009 and 2010, confirmed that Mr C was entitled to make a claim against them on the grounds that they had refused to rectify the register. However, in July 2010, his claim was refused on the basis that there had been no rectification decision. The Keeper of RoS said that this was in accordance with her new practice. It appeared that no one told Mr C about this until 2011. The standards for dealing with Mr C's complaint had, therefore, changed without him being advised. In order to make his claim, Mr C had to obtain a valuation of the land concerned. He said that he had been told to do so by staff at RoS but that this had since been denied. We found that the staff concerned had retired but correspondence was available which indicated that Mr C's recollection of events was likely to have been correct. We, therefore, upheld both of those complaints.

Mr C had also complained that RoS failed to adequately address his formal complaints to them about these matters but the evidence did not support this.

Recommendations

We recommended that RoS:

• apologise to Mr C for the confusion and inconvenience caused and for the fact that he was not formally informed of the decision that his rectification application had been cancelled.

Summary

Mr C is a recreational deer stalker using land owned by Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). He complained that the FCS refused him permission to use a pistol for the humane dispatch of wounded deer, despite this being a recognised method of humane dispatch. Mr C considered that the FCS’s refusal to allow the use of pistols placed him, and others, at risk. He raised his concerns with the FCS, then complained to us that they refused to answer relevant questions or to produce documentation that they referred to in defence of their position on pistols.

The FCS’s policy was that the use of a rifle was the only acceptable means for recreational stalkers to cull deer. However, when explaining their policy to him, they referred him to guidance that was relevant to FCS staff and advocated the use of pistols and knives. That said, the FCS advised that their staff were not permitted to use pistols. They also referred Mr C to their firearms policy, which applies UK-wide and advocates the use of pistols to dispatch wounded deer under certain specific circumstances.

We found nothing in any of the legislation or guidance that we reviewed that required the FCS to permit the use of pistols for the humane dispatch of deer. As such, we considered that the FCS had the discretion to decide not to allow the use of pistols on their land. We were satisfied that their policy in this regard was not unreasonable and that they had given due consideration to Mr C's request that he be allowed to use a pistol. That said, we found that the information provided by the FCS when communicating their policy was confusing, not relevant to recreational stalkers, and not specific to Scotland. We made similar findings in relation to their risk assessment for the humane dispatch of deer.

We were critical of the FCS's handling of Mr C's enquiries and complaint. We found that the information provided to him was confusing and that his specific questions were not answered directly. We acknowledged that the FCS had already accepted and apologised for this. Mr C's complaint escalated to the appeal stage. However, we found that there was no scope for the original decision to be challenged at that stage.

Recommendations

We recommended that FCS:

• create guidance for the humane dispatch of wounded deer that is relevant to recreational stalkers in Scotland and sets out FCS policy on the firearms that may be used;
• create a generic risk assessment for the humane dispatch of wounded deer that is relevant to recreational stalkers in Scotland and is consistent with the FCS policy of not permitting the use of pistols;
• arrange for Mr C and his syndicate members to attend a practical demonstration and discussion on the dispatch of wounded deer in line with FCS policy;
• apologise to Mr C for failing to properly consider his complaint appeal; and
• consider reviewing their complaints handling procedure to ensure that it allows for decisions to be properly reviewed upon appeal.

Summary

Ms C and Mr C were unhappy that the Care Inspectorate had refused to investigate their complaints. They had told Ms C and Mr C that that the complaints were out of time, were not appropriate for the complaints procedure and were not complaints about the Care Inspectorate.

Ms C and Mr C had felt that there were reasons why the complaints should be considered outwith the normal time limit. Our investigation found, however, that the Care Inspectorate had considered the exceptional circumstances Ms C and Mr C put forward, and had explained why, despite these, they had decided that the complaints were out of time, as they were entitled to do. We also found that they had clearly explained why one of the complaints was not suitable for the complaints procedure and why one was suitable for the review procedure (which Ms C and Mr C had in fact used).

Recommendations

We recommended that the Care Inspectorate:

• should, for the avoidance of doubt, ensure that a complainant understands that other items not related to the review of their complaint may be considered at the committee.

Summary

Mr C, a former teacher, complained that the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) did not respond reasonably to complaints that he and his school submitted about examinations. We upheld Mr C's complaint, as we found that the SQA's initial responses did not adequately address the complaints raised, and there was a significant delay in providing an appropriate response to the points Mr C had raised. In addition, the SQA should have informed the school that there would be a delay in responding to one of their letters because the matters raised were to be discussed at a meeting.

However, before Mr C complained to us, the SQA had reminded relevant staff that they should ensure that they provided appropriate information in response to all incoming enquiries and complaints. They had also reminded staff of the importance of adhering to the timescales set out in their customer complaints process. We, therefore, only made one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Qualifications Authority:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for failing to adequately address the issues raised in their responses to the initial correspondence and the delays in responding to some of the complaints.

Summary

Ms C had been made bankrupt, and the Office of the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AiB) was handling matters relating to her bankruptcy. She complained that AiB unreasonably delayed in dealing with payment protection insurance compensation funds and failed to respond adequately to her request for information.

We told Ms C that we could not look at what AiB did with the funds, but that we could look at how they responded when she queried this. Our investigation found that it took AiB seven weeks to deal with this, although they had explained the delay to her. In the circumstances, while the length of time taken was not ideal, we did not uphold this complaint.

We did, however, uphold the complaint that they failed to respond adequately to her request for information. We found that although there was no evidence that AiB misinformed Ms C, there was nothing to show that they had actively kept her informed during their investigation about what was happening or when it was likely to be concluded. To do so would have been in keeping with good practice in dealing with correspondence and complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Office of the Accountant in Bankruptcy:

• ensure that notes are made of phone conversations with enquirers and complainants; and
• ensure that enquirers and complainants are kept updated, in keeping with the AiB's complaints and contact policy, and that such updates are logged.

Summary

Mrs C complained about Forestry Commission Scotland (the commission) in relation to deer fencing in a rural area. A management plan had been developed for the area in relation to the introduction of native woodland, and, as part of this, under relevant forestry regulations Forestry Enterprise Scotland (an agency of the commission) were required to prepare an environmental statement as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment. The statement concluded that block fencing was the most appropriate for the area, as it would allow deer continued access to a lochside from the hillside as part of their natural seasonal movement. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other bodies had, however, expressed concern about this fencing, feeling that this would increase the risk of black grouse (a UK protected species) hitting the fencing. The commission granted consent for the project under the regulations in 2008, with a condition attached in relation to the fencing, stating this would involve further assessment.

Mrs C later discovered that a ring fence was to be erected rather than the block fencing originally proposed. This would prevent deer access to the north of the lochside. Mrs C complained about this to the commission both at a local and national level, saying that the consent granted had been breached, and that concerns about deer welfare and the opinions of local residents and tourists had been disregarded. However, the commission said that this decision had been taken due to the concerns raised about black grouse, and that they did not consider the consent to have been breached. We did not uphold this complaint as we accepted the position of the commission. We noted that the information in the statement was not binding, the decisions made by the commission in relation to the consent were discretionary (ie they were decisions that they were entitled to make) and they were also given scope for review by the attached condition, although we did note that the changes were significant. We made recommendations in relation to the condition and registration process, so that in future the local community would be given the opportunity to be notified and further consulted where appropriate.

Mrs C also complained about communication failings. We upheld this, as we found that that the commission had failed to consult and communicate with the local community as had been informally agreed, but we also noted that the commission had since taken steps to address this. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint that her complaints had not been dealt with impartially.

Recommendations

We recommended that the commission:

• review its procedures for the use of conditions related to consent under the Regulations, and establish a process and criteria for any submissions relative to conditions, assessment of these and decisions reached, to ensure clarity;
• develop an online database to ensure the application register and relevant documentation are accessible; and
• prepare a further written agreement clearly outlining advance notification periods they must adhere to in relation to advising the local community of continued implementation of the ongoing management plan for the area.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) handled his appeal against their decision to not accept a late application from his son for tuition fee support for his university course for 2011/2012. Mr C made four separate complaints about the SAAS handling of the matter.

The evidence we obtained during our investigation showed that the SAAS should have fully compared Mr C's initial letter of appeal and follow-up letter and had they done so, it would have become apparent that he was requesting a further appeal to the chief executive. Although there was evidence that the SAAS failed to recognise Mr C's further appeal, there was no evidence to support his view that the SAAS chief executive personally failed to follow the correct process, and we did not uphold this complaint.

We upheld his second complaint. The evidence showed that the SAAS acknowledged that they failed to deal with Mr C's stage three appeal letter correctly. It was clear that the same person dealt with Mr C's stage two and three appeals, contrary to the requirement of the procedure. On the third complaint, the evidence showed that in response to Mr C's stage three appeal letter the SAAS's compliance manager wrote a covering letter and sent this to Mr C along with a copy of his stage two response. There was no evidence that the compliance manager considered the additional information Mr C supplied in his stage three appeal letter and for this reason, we upheld this complaint.

We also upheld Mr C's fourth complaint. In response to our enquiry, the SAAS told us that they relied on the integrity of information provided by institutions, such as the university, when considering appeals. This appeared to include reliance on statements about actions that institutions said they had taken. In Mr C's case, the evidence obtained showed that the SAAS made statements in their stage two and three responses for which they did not have supporting documentary evidence. As well as requesting such statements, therefore, we considered it would be reasonable for the SAAS to require institutions to provide documentary evidence of the actions they claim to have taken, particularly where a complainant says that the actions did not take place and provides documentary evidence to suggest that this may be the case.

Recommendations

We recommended that SAAS:

• provide Mr C with a written apology for failing to escalate his stage two appeal to the chief executive;
• provide SPSO with documentary evidence that the SAAS raised the failing with the staff involved;
• provide Mr C with a written apology for failing to request full documentary evidence of the university's actions when dealing with Mr C's stage one and stage three responses which were not supported by appropriate evidence;
• take steps to obtain copies of the reminder emails sent by the university and then review their decision on Mr C's son's case, ensuring that the decision they reach is supported by appropriate documentary evidence; and
• put procedures in place to ensure that in future, staff obtain appropriate evidence when considering student appeals.

Summary

Mr C complained to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) on behalf of his parents (Mr and Mrs A) about a decision taken by a procurator fiscal. Mr and Mrs A had been victims of a crime involving damage to their property. A decision had been made to fine the individual responsible, using a process called Fiscal Fine, but this did not include any provision for the cost of the damage. After Mr C complained to COPFS they decided to make a goodwill payment to Mr and Mrs A for the cost of the damage. Mr C was dissatisfied with this, as he felt COPFS should have paid additional compensation. He felt that they should have ensured that the original fine included a requirement on the individual to pay compensation. He said that the time taken to deal with this, and failures in the handling of his complaints, had resulted in stress and distress for his parents beyond the physical damage to the property.

Mr C's complaint about the fiscal's decision was not something that we could look at, as such decisions are for the body itself to make, provided they do so through the correct process. We did, however, investigate and uphold his complaint about COPFS' complaints handling. This was because they had not responded to specific issues he raised, because there was unreasonable delay in responding and because they dealt with his complaint twice at the same stage of their complaints procedure. We made recommendations, but none about further payment. (We cannot say whether compensation is due, which is a matter for the courts, but we may make recommendations for redress payments.) In this case, in line with our redress policy, we took the view that the failures were not serious enough for us to recommend financial redress.

Recommendations

We recommended that COPFS:

• apologise to Mr C that they did not respond to the question he raised in a letter regarding the provision of the name of the man who had damaged his parents' property to him, that they did not provide any explanation why their response to an email was not made within the timescales set out in their complaints procedure and that two other letters were dealt with at stage one of their complaints procedure;
• remind staff involved in complaints handing of the need to ensure it is always clear, both to complainants and internally, what stage of the procedure complaints are at; and
• remind staff involved in complaints handling of the need to ensure that they keep complainants updated when they are unable to respond to complaints within the published timescales.

Summary

Mr C lives in a rural location accessed from a trunk road currently maintained by contractors instructed by Transport Scotland. In 2002/03 the trunk road and improved access works were upgraded by contractors appointed by the predecessor trunk road authority.

In the summer of 2011 Mr C experienced problems of standing water, deterioration of his private drive, the functioning of his septic tank and an underground cable for his satellite dish. He thought these were linked to the earlier road drainage works. Dissatisfied with Transport Scotland’s response to his complaints Mr C complained to us that the previous trunk road authority failed to make adequate provision for water draining from the trunk road, that Transport Scotland denied liability for damage caused as a result of their failures and delayed in responding to Mr C’s problems.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold any of these complaints. Changes in trunk road contractor and the misplacing or disposal of relevant drawings meant that it was not possible to establish what was designed. Transport Scotland had not accepted liability, as they were entitled to do. On a 'without prejudice' basis, Transport Scotland had instructed works in the summer of 2012 to try to resolve the problems, but Mr C disputed the effectiveness of those works. In the light of that dispute, therefore, we made one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Transport Scotland:

• monitor the effectiveness of the measures undertaken in July 2012 and, should these prove not to be effective in draining water from the trunk road, the need for further works be considered.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) dealt with his complaint about a charity. His concerns related to both the quality of the OSCR investigations and their communication with Mr C during and following their investigations.

Our investigation found no administrative failure in terms of the content of the investigation, but we did note that it had taken far too long to complete. In addition we noted that OSCR had failed to keep Mr C fully informed of the progress of the case and had not dealt appropriately with his subsequent complaint. We upheld these aspects of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator:

• provide an apology to Mr C for the injustice identified in our decision notice;
• introduce some limited form of routine updating to complainants and alter their inquiry and investigation policy accordingly; and
• review their complaints policy and consult with the Ombudsman before introducing a revised version.