Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) was aggrieved that the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission (SPCC) failed to properly investigate his complaint that he was being kept unnecessarily in segregation by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). He complained that, having decided to re-investigate his complaint, the SPCC later dropped it because he had been moved to another prison.

Specific complaint and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the decision by the SPCC to suspend Mr C's complaint when a new Interim Commissioner was appointed in July 2008 was unreasonable and caused him injustice (upheld);
• (b) the decision by the SPCC to re-investigate Mr C's complaint was flawed and caused him hardship and injustice given that the previous Commissioner had already made recommendations to the Executive Committee for the Management of Difficult Prisoners (ECMDP) (upheld);
• (c) the SPCC misinterpreted Mr C's complaint concerning a specific prison, and as a result dropped it (upheld);
• (d) the decision by the SPCC to drop Mr C's complaint entirely was flawed and based on insufficient, or untested, evidence that the SPS were managing his case (upheld);
• (e) there were unreasonable delays by the SPCC in dealing with Mr C's complaint (upheld); and (f) the administrative handling and service quality of Mr C's complaint was poor (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the SPCC:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the shortcomings and failings identified in this report;
• (ii) go back to the SPS and urgently establish if there is a long-term management plan and/or reintegration plan in place for Mr C and provide evidence of the plan to this office;
• (iii) give proper consideration to the need for impact assessments when introducing service changes;
• (iv) in future, carefully consider a complainant's original complaint, and all the circumstances surrounding it, as well as consulting fully with the complainant to ensure that they understand the complaint and his/her point of view before deciding to drop any of the heads of complaint;
• (v) take steps to introduce their internal timescale targets as quickly as possible and include them in their complaints leaflet so that complainants are aware of what they can expect from the SPCC; and
• (vi) review their complaints handling processes and systems with a view to improving their communication with complainants. In addition, they should consider putting in place better information gathering techniques and improve their file management procedures.

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding Communities Scotland (the Grant Provider)'s handling of her application for a Rural Home Ownership Grant (RHOG). Mrs C complained that the Grant Provider and their local agents, failed to follow the correct procedures when processing her application and that communication from the two agencies was poor.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) the Grant Provider failed to follow their own guidelines when considering Mrs C's RHOG application (upheld); and
(b) communication from the Grant Provider was poor (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Scottish Government Housing and Regeneration Directorate:
(i) ensure that their agents fully understand their responsibilities with regard to RHOG applications, in particular by ensuring that all applications meet the required criteria and are fully completed prior to submission;
(ii) produce clear guidelines for their agents on presenting a case for consideration of applications with special circumstances;
(iii) require all RHOG applicants to have read and agreed their complete application before signing;
(iv) review Mrs C's case to identify any areas where communication between themselves and the Agent could have been improved; and
(v) formally apologise to Mrs C for the confusion and delay surrounding her RHOG application.

The Scottish Government Housing and Regeneration Directorate have accepted the recommendations and will act upon them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns regarding the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit (SEIRU)'s handling of his appeal in respect of a proposed Alteration or Removal of Buildings or Works Order (the Order). In particular, Mr C was unhappy with the actions of the appointed reporter (the Reporter) and the conduct of the corresponding hearing (the Hearing). The specific points of complaint are listed below.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Hearing and corresponding site visit were not conducted in a proper and fair manner (not upheld);
• (b) SEIRU mismanaged the documentation relating to the Hearing (not upheld); and
• (c) SEIRU did not fully consider Mr C's subsequent complaints (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the DPEA issue an apology to Mr C for the lack of clarity in their responses to his complaints. More generally, she would remind them of the importance of outlining their role and remit to complainants and of providing a clear explanation of what they can and cannot consider. Where they are not able to fully respond to any specific points raised, they should provide details as to why this is the case.

The DPEA have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the way in which his grandmother (Mrs A) was assessed by Lanarkshire NHS Board (the Board) for NHS funded continuing care. Mr C also raised concerns that the Scottish Government's policy on NHS funded continuing care was unclear and that there was no way for somebody living in the community to be assessed as the policy only provided for assessment upon discharge from hospital.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Scottish Government Health Directorate failed to take timely steps to update the guidance on NHS funded continuing care despite being aware of problems associated with it (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) made 43 separate complaints to the Ombudsman's office about the Crofters Commission (the Commission). The Ombudsman decided to investigate 28 of these complaints, which have been grouped together and investigated under seven separate heads of complaint. The complaints investigated include delay and inaction relating to an apportionment application, failure to take action with regard to the conduct of a Grazings Clerk, delay in providing Minutes and Accounts, mishandling and falsely reporting an Annual General Meeting, failing to deal with and resolve acceptably complaints about the financial accounts of a Grazings Committee, failure to give adequate notice of a meeting, wrongly calling this meeting and recording inappropriate and false statements in the Commission minutes; and failure in the handling of a second application for apportionment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Commission:

• (a) delayed and did not take action in respect of an application for apportionment (upheld);
• (b) failed to take prompt or effective action in respect of the conduct of the Grazings Clerk (upheld);
• (c) delayed in providing the requested Minutes and Accounts for an Annual General Meeting held on 30 March 2001 (partially upheld);
• (d) seriously mishandled an Annual General Meeting held on 14 December 2001, produced a false report of that meeting and refused to correct the report or apologise (not upheld);
• (e) failed to deal with complaints made about the financial accounts of the Grazings Committee, including failure to provide correct information on dealing with a formal complaint and putting forward an unacceptable solution to resolve the complaint (partially upheld);
• (f) failed to give adequate notice of a meeting that took place on 22 July 2002, wrongly called and conducted the meeting and recorded inappropriate and false statements in the Commission minutes (partially upheld);
• (g) failed in the handling of an application for a small area of apportionment out of the Common Grazings (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Commission:

• (i) put systems in place to ensure that their staff know how to deal with representations received after an apportionment has been granted;
• (ii) put guidance in place to ensure that both the Commission and the crofting community are clear about the role of the Commission in relation to disputes between shareholders, and between a shareholder and a Grazings Committee;
• (iii) give consideration to the merits of introducing a process whereby an individual shareholder can request an investigation of an alleged breach of the Grazings Regulations;
• (iv) give consideration to introducing an appropriate mechanism to assist in the resolution of disputes between a shareholder and a Grazings Committee;
• (v) Chief Executive reports to the Commission that Mrs C could not have expected that a meeting needed to take place before 27 July 2002 and that the Commission provides a response to Mrs C in relation to this matter; and
• (vi) provide Mrs C with a meaningful apology for the shortcomings identified in the Report.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns on behalf of his wife (Mrs C) about the way the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, now the Scottish Government  Environment Directorate (the Directorate), handled her application for the Single Farm Payment Scheme - National Reserve 2005 (SFPS - NR 2005) during the period February 2005 to March 2006.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Directorate failed to handle properly Mrs C's application made under the SFPS - NR 2005 (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Directorate:

• (i) reminds their staff of the importance of apologising for mistakes;
• (ii) apologises to Mrs C for the lost application;
• (iii) reminds staff of the importance of ensuring they provide consistent responses to all correspondence; and
• (iv) ensures its advice on agricultural scheme requirements is explicit in all its literature.

The Directorate have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, submitted a complaint about a report (the Report) issued by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS) concerning matters he raised with them.  He said that, although he pointed to a number of inaccuracies in the Report, they were not amended.  He further said that the Report included favourable comments about police involvement and that when it was published, despite it being anonymised, he was easily identifiable.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the PCCS did not amend inaccuracies in the Report which were brought to their attention by Mr C (not upheld);
• (b) the Report should not have included favourable comments about the police (not upheld); and
• (c) Mr C was easily identifiable from the Report (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, notwithstanding that it is ultimately for the PCCS to determine their own internal procedures, the PCCS reconsider their decision not to issue draft reports, in order to allow any possible errors of fact to be amended prior to the publication of a final report.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns regarding the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS)'s handling of her application for Lone Parents' Grant (LPG) and Additional Childcare Grant for Lone Parents (ACG).  She complained that a delay in awarding LPG caused her undue financial hardship and she is unhappy that, following her withdrawal from her course, she was unreasonably asked to repay overpaid amounts.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs C was caused undue financial hardship due to the delay in SAAS accurately assessing her entitlement to, and awarding, LPG (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that, in recognition of the inconvenience Mrs C experienced, and as a gesture of goodwill, SAAS consider waiving the overpaid amounts in respect of LPG, ACG and travel expenses.

SAAS have accepted the recommendation and have agreed to waive the overpaid amounts.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the attitude of an officer (Officer 1) of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) during an inspection of her nursery (the Nursery) and about the way in which her complaint to the Care Commission had been investigated.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Officer 1 spoke to the Nursery staff in an unprofessional way during the inspection (upheld);
• (b) the Care Commission did not carry out an adequate investigation of MrsC's complaint:
• (i) Mrs C's complaint was not initially identified as a complaint (not upheld);
• (ii) the Care Commission did not take into account similar concerns which had been raised about Officer 1 when investigating Mrs C's complaint (partially upheld to the extent that Mrs C was not given an appropriate explanation for why these concerns were not taken into account);
• (iii) the Care Commission did not ask the correct questions of staff who were interviewed (not upheld); and
• (iv) Mrs C's complaint was not passed to the Care Commission Review Committee in accordance with their complaints process (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Care Commission:

• (i) take steps to ensure that all evidence provided by complainants is appropriately considered and that explanations are provided, where appropriate, for why particular evidence cannot be relied upon;
• (ii) remind relevant staff that the internal complaints procedure should be exhausted before referring a complainant to the Ombudsman; and
• (iii) apologise to Mrs C for the failings identified in this report.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding Forest Enterprise Scotland (FES)'s proposals for a development to remove timber by sea from the local area as this would allegedly impact on Mr C's quality of life.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the consultation carried out by FES was inadequate (not upheld);
• (a) FES did not follow their policy 'The People's Forest' when considering the development (not upheld); and
• (b) FES failed to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment when considering the development (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.