Scottish Government and Devolved Administration
Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained that the Scottish Information Commissioner had breached a deadline for issuing a decision notice on a number of Freedom of Information requests.
Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is failure to issue various decision notices within a period of four months (not upheld)
As the investigation progressed, I identified issues concerning the complaints procedure of the Office of the Commissioner. I, therefore, informed the Office of the Commissioner and Mr C that the investigation would additionally consider whether the complaints procedure was adequate for handling the circumstances surrounding Mr C's complaint.
Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Commissioner:
- (i) streamline their complaints procedure; and
- (ii) consider whether or not to implement an unacceptable actions policy for service users.
Overview
The aggrieved (Mrs A) was resident in a Care Home until shortly before her death in hospital in June 2003. Her son (Mr C) complained to the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) about the care of his mother in the Care Home.
Specific complaint and conclusion
The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care failed to properly investigate Mr C's complaint about the care of his mother and in particular the conclusion of their investigation was not borne out by the evidence presented (upheld).
Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends that the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care adopt the practice of seeking to agree a statement of complaint which will include reference to the specific matters being investigated.
The Care Commission have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.
Overview
The complainant (Mr C) felt the behaviour of a member of the Parole Board (Officer 1) was inappropriate as he felt that Officer 1 acted as an advocate for his release, which was not the role to be assumed by Officer 1. Mr C also complained that inaccurate minutes had been provided to the Parole Board (the Board) Review when considering his case and this adversely affected the decision reached by the Board. Furthermore, the complainant felt the Board should have re-convened a new review due to the inaccuracies in the minutes.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
- (a) the manner in which Officer 1 conducted the interview, acting as an advocate for Mr C’s release when in fact this was not her role (not upheld);
- (b) incorrect information recorded on minutes and the adverse effect this had on the Parole Board’s decision on the review of Mr C’s case (not upheld), and;
- (c) the decision not to re-convene a new review panel given the inaccuracies in the minutes (not upheld).
Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.
Overview
The complaint concerned the way in which a planning application was handled. In particular, there was an allegation that the Inquiry Reporter misdirected himself.
Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Inquiry Reporter misdirected himself and refused the appeal on grounds that did not pertain to the application made (not upheld).
Redress and Recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.
Overview
The complaint concerned the Reporter's handling of a planning appeal against the refusal of planning permission by Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) for the change of use from an established traveller pitch to form three permanent traveller pitches near the village in which Mr C lives (referred to as village X). Mr C contended that the Reporter failed to deal with the appeal in accordance with the proper procedure and that, as a consequence of the flawed decision to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission, the development would have an adverse effect on his property.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
- (a) the Reporter failed to consider properly the planning history of the use of site (not upheld);
- (b) the Reporter failed to gather and consider properly all relevant planning factors before deciding the appeal (not upheld); and
- (c) the Reporter failed to consider properly issues relating to amenity and road safety (not upheld).
Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.
In May 2005 the Ombudsman accepted a complaint from a prisoner (Mr C) against the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about his dissatisfaction with their handling of his application to transfer to an open prison. In a subsequent complaint against the SPS, Mr C complained of delay and other administrative shortcomings in the handling of his compassionate visit application by HMP Peterhead and HMP Dumfries. Both complaints were handled together and the combined investigation is the subject of this report.
Forestry Commission Scotland
The complaint concerned the way in which Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) dealt with an investigation into alleged illegal tree felling.
The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care - This concerned the Care Commission’s handling of a complaint brought by a Mrs A against the Association, and the subsequent issues raised. It also related to the Care Commission’s formal advice to the Association that Mr B, a Care Manager for the Association, was not considered to be a ‘fit person’ to hold a management position under the terms of the Regulation of Care (Requirements as to Care Services)(Scotland) Regulations 2002 (the Regulations) (SSI 2002 114).
The Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) - complaint was from a man (Mr C) who claimed that the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) were demanding a £2,000 Graduate Endowment payment from him and threatening legal action if he failed to pay. Mr C was aggrieved because, despite providing SAAS with information which he considered showed that he was clearly not liable, they continued to pursue him for payment.
Complaint about the Scottish Executive Health Department - complaint was from a group of patients (referred to in this report as the Group) representing the former patients of a general practitioner (GP A). The Group complained that the Scottish Executive Health Department (SEHD) failed to properly manage and advise them on the application process for the replacement of GP A or the appeal against appointment by another GP (GP B).