Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Overview

The complainants, Mr and Mrs C raised a number of concerns about the way in which the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) handled their complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Care Commission:

• (a)  incorrectly advised an adoption agency (the Agency) that Mr C was given a formal warning in relation to inappropriate behaviour (not upheld);
• (b)  failed to confirm that they had not disclosed the information concerned to third parties and that the document(s) involved had been destroyed (not upheld);
• (c)  went beyond their legislative powers and took unnecessary action (not upheld); and
• (d)  delayed in investigating their complaint, resulting in significant repercussions for the complainants (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Care Commission ensure that, in relation to child protection issues and where there are concerns, staff are fully aware of the procedures to be followed.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about statements made by the then First Minister in the Scottish Parliament and about how his complaint was dealt with by the Office of the First Minister.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the First Minister made two inaccurate statements to the Scottish Parliament on 9 February 2006 (not upheld);
• (b)  there is no clear and publicly available complaints procedure for the Office of the First Minister, which should incorporate the right of appeal to an independent body (not upheld);
• (c)  the Scottish Ministerial Code is deficient in that it lacks a clear mechanism for bringing complaints against Scottish Ministers, including the First Minister (partially upheld); and
• (d)  the Office of the First Minister failed to respond to a complaint submitted by Mr C (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i)  Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Executive reflect on how they might bring about greater clarity in the arrangements for making different types of complaint about Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Executive; and
• (ii)  the Scottish Executive review its procedures for acknowledging complaints and keeping complainants informed when target response times cannot be met.

The Scottish Executive have accepted the recommendations.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained that, during the review of their investigation into her complaint against a care home (the Care Home), The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) failed to take into account all relevant evidence and they used witness statements out of context.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that, within their review process, the Care Commission:

• (a)  did not consider documentary evidence provided by Mrs C (not upheld); and
• (b)  did not refer to one of the witness's statements and used the remaining witnesses' statements out of context (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

While the specific complaints brought by Mrs C are not upheld, the Ombudsman recommends that the Care Commission offer Mrs C an apology for their failure to confirm, during both their initial investigation and the review, that the documentary evidence, which she provided, had indeed been considered.

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

Overview

The complainant, Ms C, raised a number of concerns about the way in which The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) handled the inspection of nursery premises owned by her.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  it was inappropriate for the inspection and subsequent report to have been carried out by officers against whom Ms C had complained (not upheld);
• (b)  criticisms levelled against Ms C's establishment in the inspection report were not put into context (not upheld); and
• (c)  the inspection was not carried out in accordance with the Care Commission's procedures (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, in order to avoid confusion, when making recommendations to service providers the Care Commission should ensure that they are clear, specific and measurable.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of complaints that were in connection with unanswered questions he put to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) about private discharge proposals in or near sewered areas.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that SEPA:

• (a)        failed to answer five questions outlined in Mr C's letter of 25 April 2005 and all subsequent questions he raised thereafter (upheld);
• (b)        failed to adequately answer the related queries from Mr C's lawyer (not upheld);
• (c)        failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the Service Charter that was in operation at the time Mr C made his complaint (upheld);
• (d)        failed to ensure that their staff should not use draft policies that have not been signed off by the Board (not upheld); and
• (e)        as an organisation fails to be consistent and fair (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that SEPA:

• (i)         apologise to Mr C for failing to answer his five questions and respond directly to him answering the questions in the same way that SEPA replied to me;
• (ii)        apologise to Mr C for their failure to meet the terms and conditions of their Service Charter;
• (iii)       review how they identify and address formal complaints that arise from ongoing correspondence.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was unhappy that, despite recent changes in Age Discrimination legislation, the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (the SAAS) would not award grants to any person over 55.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the SAAS would not award a grant to Mr C because of his age (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the SAAS, when explaining their position to students, inform them that they have taken into account current guidance when reaching their decision and what this guidance says.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C), who owns and manages a care home, complained that The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) refused to accept her complaint about the performance and competence of two members of staff under their complaints procedure.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Care Commission failed to accept Ms C’s complaint about the performance and competence of two members of their staff, which disregarded the requirements of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Care Commission’s complaints procedure (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was concerned that it was not until six years after the conclusion of her divorce that she was presented with her bill for legal services.  She believed this was an unreasonable length of time to have elapsed and that the actions of the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) had been responsible for causing a delay to the presentation of her final liability.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the SLAB unreasonably delayed the presentation of Ms C's final liability relating to her divorce proceedings (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

Prior to the publication of this report, SLAB apologised to Ms C for the delay as the Ombudsman had recommended in a draft version of this report.  The Ombudsman has no further recommendations to make.

Overview

The aggrieved (Mr and Mrs A) who were represented by their MSP (Mr C), were concerned that publicity for the Executive's Central Heating Programme for over 60s was inadequate, leading to unfair treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  there was a failure to promote and advertise properly the central heating programme for over 60s (not upheld);
• (b)  Mr and Mrs A were unfairly treated in missing the opportunity to apply for a grant (not upheld); and
• (c)  they were unfairly treated in being refused some compensation for the cost of installing central heating (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman makes no recommendations in this case.

Overview

The complaint concerned the handling of an appeal against a local authority planning decision by the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit (SEIRU).  The complainant alleged that SEIRU failed to follow their own procedures.  He also alleged that communication from SEIRU was of a poor standard and that SEIRU/the Reporter failed to explain decisions, resulting in the complainant (Mr C)'s view that SEIRU lacked accountability.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the SEIRU failed to follow their own procedures (not upheld)
• (b)  the Reporter failed to explain decisions (not upheld); and
• (c)  there was poor communication from SEIRU (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that SEIRU:

• (i)  should consider when writing to complainants how best to give clear, plain English, explanations supported by references to relevant statute where appropriate;
• (ii)  should consider developing guidelines for Reporters on recording measurements and their presentation in letters and reports; and
• (iii)  should ensure that its complaints procedure is made clear to complainants at an early stage after they have made their complaint.

SEIRU have accepted the recommendations.