Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was unhappy that the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) had terminated his grant for legal aid on the grounds that he had not informed them he was living with a partner (Ms C) and a report placed before a court said that he was.  Mr C said he had not been living with Ms C and SLAB did not give him the opportunity to produce evidence concerning this.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that SLAB terminated Mr C's legal aid without considering his evidence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned the administrative actions of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) relating to complaint handling, with specific reference to how COPFS performed against its own service standards and customer feedback policy.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the administrative actions of COPFS relating to their handling of the complaint were inappropriate, limited to how COPFS performed against response timescales in their own service standards and customer feedback policy (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned a decision made by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) in relation to the award of civil legal aid, which the complainant (Ms C) claimed unfairly disadvantaged her, showed bias and was a misuse of the public purse.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Ms C was unfairly disadvantaged by SLAB's decision to grant an extension of civil legal aid to her opponent in legal action, after an extension of civil legal aid was not granted to Ms C (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has made a general recommendation that SLAB should consider whether the documents it produces are clear enough on how members of the public can seek a review of SLAB decisions and how to give appropriate procedural advice (not legal representation) about this to the public.  SLAB should, of course, do this without compromising its obligations under statute.

SLAB have accepted the recommendation.

Overview

A solicitor, Mr C, complained that the Company he represents was misled by a local enterprise company giving reassurances that funding would be made available.  The application was subsequently refused and Mr C claimed that this led to financial losses for the Company.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Inverness and Nairn Enterprise (INE) misled the Company by giving a reasonable expectation that the application for grant assistance would be successful and that the Company unjustly incurred costs as a result of the subsequent rejection of the application (upheld);
• (b)  INE gave assurances that the beginning of preparatory work on site would not prejudice the likely success of the application.  The beginning of such work was later used as a reason for rejecting the complaint (upheld);
• (c)  INE did not alert the Company at the beginning of the application process to issues of displacement and additionality which would later form the basis for the rejection of the application (upheld); and
• (d)  there were inconsistencies in the reasons offered to the Company for the rejection of the application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board of HIE:

• (i)  apologise to the Company;
• (ii)  review the way applications for financial assistance are supported to ensure clarity of expectations;
• (iii)  address the need for clear, documented advice to applicants throughout that process; and
• (iv)  ensure that all eligibility criteria are clearly addressed at the beginning and throughout the application process.

Overview

Mr C complained that as a result of a review of specific grazing regulations  initiated by the Crofters Commission (the Commission) he had suffered a reduction of souming  which resulted in a lack of grazing for cattle between 6 months and 24 months old.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Commission did not adequately explain the effects of the proposed revision of the Grazing Regulations and that this has adversely affected Mr C's use of his croft (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Commission:

• (i)       in any future work relating to grazing regulations consider providing working definitions of key terms; and
• (ii)      pursue with Mr C the scope for them to assist in achieving a mutually acceptable resolution of issues between him and the grazings committees.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was unhappy with an investigation undertaken by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Commission) into his complaint that his mother (Mrs D) had been prevented from leaving the Care Home (the Home) where she was resident.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the initial report and subsequent review of Mr C's complaint about the Home were flawed.  In particular, that all the evidence was not taken into account and the initial report focussed on the social work department and not on the complaint actually made (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman makes no recommendations.

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) was concerned she had been encouraged by the Crofters Commission (the Commission) to submit an application for apportionment as part of a planned scheme and that this was then considered as a single application and rejected.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is about the Commission's handling of Miss C's application (upheld).

Redress and recommendation(s)

The Ombudsman recommends that the Commission:

• (i) apologise to Miss C for their handling of her application;
• (ii) reimburse her for any expenses she can demonstrate were reasonably incurred in the course of making this application following the Commission's decision to proceed in April 2004 and include an additional payment of £150 for the inconvenience and distress caused to her; and
• (iii) review the advice and training given to staff as to the procedures to be followed when a planned scheme is envisaged and, in particular, ensure staff are aware of the need to clarify applicants' understanding of this process and respond appropriately to any changes in circumstances which occur during the application process which may affect this.

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

Overview

A man (Mr C) complained that the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) did not adequately investigate his concerns that  his mother (Mrs A) had money stolen from her while she was resident in a care home (the Home).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Care Commission did not consider Mr C's evidence and believed everything staff at the Home said to them without investigation (Ppartially Uupheld); and
• (b) the Care Commission did not make proper enquiries, in particular, that they did not seek relevant information from the Police, the lawyer who holds Mrs A's power of attorney and Mrs A (Nnot Uupheld).

 Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Care Commission ensure both sides in a complaint receive the same information about their findings and that it be clarified in training and guidance that any decision letter must fully reflect the investigation undertaken and communicate this clearly to the complainant.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C), a crofter, had submitted an application for the apportionment of common grazings which was received by the Crofters Commission (the Commission) on 30 September 2002.  Mr C complained about delays in dealing with the handling of the application.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that there was delay following the application for apportionment in 2002 (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Commission:

• (i)       apologise to Mr C that they did not pursue the planned scheme with full effectiveness; and
• (ii)      review their procedures for monitoring outstanding applications to ensure that they are progressed effectively.

Overview

A member of the Scottish Parliament (Mr C) complained on behalf of a village residents' association in his constituency.  Until 1999, the village had been the location of a prison, owned and run by the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS).  The prison itself was sold in 2003.  The SPS also owned a number of residential properties in the village, occupied by prison employees.  These properties were serviced by private roads and lighting systems.  Mr C complained that, prior to selling these properties to private individuals, the SPS failed to make appropriate provision for the future upkeep of the roads and lighting.  He also complained that the SPS withdrew, without notice, from a funding agreement they had entered into that he claimed would enable works to be done to the roads and lighting to allow the local authority to take over responsibility for them.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the SPS failed to make appropriate provision for the future upkeep of the private roads and lighting systems before selling them (not upheld); and
• (b)      the SPS withdrew, without notice, from a funding agreement to pay for a share of the costs of upgrading the private roads and lighting to a standard that would be satisfactory for the relevant local authority to adopt (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.