Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Overview
The aggrieved (Mr A) claimed that Reliance Custodial Services (RCS) used excessive security when his brother (Mr B), a prisoner, visited him in The State Hospital.  Mr A's advocate (Ms C) complained on his behalf to the Scottish Prison Service (the Service).

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that there was excessive security in an already secure environment (The State Hospital) with regard to Mr B's visit to Mr A on 31 January 2006 as supervised by RCS (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Service ask RCS to apologise to Mr A for not conducting a risk assessment for the visit on 31 January 2006 which led to an inconvenient visit and caused Mr A to complain.

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

Overview

Mrs C complained to The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) about child care services she had received during her daughter's stay at a nursery (the Nursery).  The Care Commission carried out an investigation and a follow-up inspection programme, as a result of her complaint, which Mrs C has considered was inadequate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Care Commission failed to ensure that a recommendation and requirements from the investigation and inspection reports were implemented by the Nursery (not upheld); and
• (b) the Care Commission failed to address the issues raised by Mrs C in her letter of 13 August 2006 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) were dissatisfied with the handling of their complaints by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) about issues relating to their planning proposals and SEPA’s role as a consultee, when the complainants’ application was determined by the planning authority and taken to appeal.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated concern the actions of a SEPA Panel, which looked into:

• (a) unacceptable time taken and lack of communication in addressing a contamination complaint (partially upheld);
• (b) inconsistency in delivering information to the Planning Authority and the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit[1] (not upheld); and
• (c) failure by SEPA to meet the terms and conditions of their Service Charter (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that SEPA:

• (i) take action to issue Mr and Mrs C with a formal apology for the failure to inform them properly, from the outset, of the remit of the Panel’s investigation and its progress, including implementation of their recommendations;
• (ii) review their investigation process to ensure that, in future, all parties will be made fully aware at the outset of the scope of an investigation, its remit and what can be expected at the conclusion of the process; and
• (iii) take steps to review their policy on redress.

SEPA have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

[1] now the Department of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA).  On 3 September 2007 Scottish Ministers formally adopted the title Scottish Government to replace the term Scottish Executive.  The latter term is used in this report as it applied at the time of the events to which the report relates.

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) raised concerns that the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) did not carry out an adequate investigation of a complaint she made about the quality of care her mother had received at a residential care home.  She also complained that a further complaint that she made to the Care Commission in October 2005 was not properly investigated.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Care Commission did not carry out an adequate investigation of Miss C's complaint of 30 April 2005 (not upheld); and
• (b) the Care Commission did not adequately investigate Miss C's complaint of 14 October 2005 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants, Mr and Mrs C, raised concerns about the conduct of an investigation carried out by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) into allegations made anonymously against a member of staff employed in a nursing home owned by Mr and Mrs C.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Care Commission's initial investigation was disproportionate to the complaint and should have been dealt with at Level 1 of the Care Commission's investigative process (not upheld);
• (b) the professional judgement of the Care Commission officer was compromised by previous complaints made by Mr and Mrs C into their investigations (not upheld); and
• (c) given that the Care Commission's process was reviewed after their complaint, it was unreasonable that the Care Commission officers were exonerated (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was a solicitor representing a company which was defending a court action.  The pursuers in this case had applied for Legal Aid and Mr C complained that delays in reviewing the award of Legal Aid were prejudicial to his clients.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there were unreasonable delays by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) in reviewing Mr C's opponents' Legal Aid status and these delays 'disadvantaged' his clients (upheld only to the extent that Mr C's clients experienced a period of uncertainty over the outcome of the consideration of representations); and
• (b) these delays were in breach of the service standards set by SLAB (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that SLAB:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for failing to update him adequately about the progress of their considerations; and
• (ii) implement measures to ensure that information received regarding the ongoing grant of Legal Aid is processed efficiently and that communications with parties involved in this process are clear and timely.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained that a local enterprise company did not adequately assess the possible economic impact on his business of a project they were funding.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey Enterprise did not adequately assess the impact on Mr C's hotel business of a project they were funding (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants, Mr and Mrs C, raised a number of concerns about the way in which VisitScotland handled their complaint about the Quality Assurance Scheme.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) inspection visits made to Mr and Mrs C's guest house were not in accordance with VisitScotland's usual procedure in so far as frequency and variation (day/night) were concerned (not upheld);
• (b) the standards that Mr and Mrs C required to achieve to increase their star grading were not specified sufficiently (partially upheld); and
• (c) Mr and Mrs C were not advised, in advance of their December 2006 inspection, that assessment standards had changed (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, in relation to their current standards, VisitScotland ensure that inspection staff are clear about the standards pertaining to each star rating and that, as far as possible, these standards are specific and measurable.

VisitScotland have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised concerns that Scottish Enterprise Tayside (SET) failed to manage the installation of a computerised financial management system (FMS) and that they and Scottish Enterprise (SE) did not handle his subsequent complaints appropriately.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints that have been investigated are that:

• (a) SET failed to properly manage the installation of a computerised FMS (not upheld); and
• (b) SET and SE failed to properly handle subsequent complaints to them (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, alleged that an undertaking to defer the decision on his planning appeal was ignored.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that an undertaking to defer the decision on Mr C's planning appeal was ignored (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.