SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained about the service he received from Business Gateway in relation to applications for grants for his new business. He said that he was encouraged to apply for grants but, when his applications were unsuccessful, staff did not respond reasonably to his requests for further information and assistance. When he complained about the service, he said that the council had handled his complaint poorly, and outside the appropriate response timescales. We noted a lack of contemporary evidence on what was discussed at some of Mr C's meetings with Business Gateway. However, we did not find any evidence that Mr C had been given inaccurate information, though we did note that more detailed information could have been made available about the eligibility criteria for grants. We identified issues with the way that staff informed Mr C of the outcome of his applications, and how clear this information was. His applications had not been successful, but this was not clear from the emails Mr C initially received after a panel considered his applications. When Mr C complained to the council, they did not initially handle his correspondence as a complaint. We agreed with Mr C that the council were inappropriately applying the timescales in their complaints handling procedure, by taking the day they received a complaint as 'day 0' rather than 'day 1'. Mr C also made a claim for compensation, which he complained had not be appropriately considered. While we found that there was no evidence that the council's legal department had appropriately considered this claim, we explained that it is not our role to assess claims for compensation.

Ms C received a letter from her children’s school outlining the options available to the school in accommodating classes for the next academic year. Ms C believed that a further option was available that had not been considered, so she raised this with the school. The school distributed a second letter stating that this further option had been considered and outlining why it had been rejected. Ms C complained to the council about several aspects of the school's decision and then brought her complaints to us. Ms C said that the potential further option had not been considered by the school. We considered that the reasons the school gave for the option being rejected had been referred to in their first letter and that, therefore, there was evidence that the option had been considered. We decided that, in these circumstances, there was no evidence of the alleged maladministration or service failure. Related reading View Decision Report 201501801 as a PDF (10.97 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C told us he received an enforcement notice from the council's debt recovery agent, which said he owed money for unpaid non-domestic rates. Mr C had never had a business or paid non-domestic rates in the council's area. He asked the council to confirm that he did not owe the money, and that his credit rating would not be adversely affected. He asked the council to explain how the error had occurred. Mr C sent a further email after two weeks and, when he did not receive any reply, made a complaint. Even taking into account that the council said they did not receive Mr C's first email, we found it had taken them too long to reply to him and to confirm that he was not the person who owed them money. They exceeded their target timescale for replying to correspondence. There was no evidence that they prioritised Mr C's correspondence considering the error he was alleging or the fact he had made a complaint. The council's explanations about why the enforcement notice was sent were confused and inaccurate. Due to Mr C's efforts in pursuing the matter, the council later accepted that he should have been sent a much softer letter in order to establish whether he was the person they were trying to find. We found that the council had not provided a reasonable response to Mr C's complaint. His complaint was acknowledged and responded to within the target timescales at each stage and, rightly, the responses contained an acknowledgement of and apology for the delay. However, at each stage they failed to address the substantive point about the letter sent to Mr C in error.

Ms C, an advice worker, complained to us on behalf of Ms A, following the council's refusal of her application for a Community Care Grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund. Ms C felt that the council had failed to properly consider the application, as the reasons for refusal given at each stage of the process were either very limited or absent. On investigation, we found that the council had failed to follow Scottish Welfare Fund guidance in a number of areas. Their record of the decision-making process was limited, and fell short of what was required, and their decisions appeared to be based on a misquote or misinterpretation of the guidance. They had also failed to comply with the guidance on communicating accurate reasons for their decisions at each stage of the process, which affected Ms A's ability to effectively appeal their decisions. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Mrs C said the council failed to repair potholes (in a lane she used to reach her work car park) by two dates they said they would get the work done. We found that the council's records said repair works took place by the first date, although Mrs C said she saw no sign of such works being carried out. The council's second response to Mrs C did not mention the repairs scheduled for completion around this date. The council acknowledged that they did not carry out repair works by the second date they gave to Mrs C and, given this, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his client (Miss A) who had been refused an application made to the council for a crisis grant. The reasons for the refusal were that she had already received a grant in the preceding 28 days and her circumstances had not changed. Miss A requested a review of this decision, which was unsuccessful. In the response letter no reasons were given for the decision. Miss A then requested a second stage review, which was also unsuccessful, and again no reasons were provided in the response. Mr C then complained to us about the lack of reasoning provided. He also felt that the decision to not award a second grant within 28 days was not in line with Scottish Government guidance. After our enquiries to the council, they accepted that there had been errors in providing reasoning and, as a result, agreed to overturn their decision and pay Miss A the grant. They also agreed to implement new processes to ensure that future decision letters contained detailed reasoning. However, they maintained that their decision-making with regards to her repeat application had been correct. On consulting the Scottish Government guidance, we agreed that there had been failings with regards to the reasons provided but also that they had been correct in their assertion that a second grant should not be paid within 28 days. We believed that the actions they had already agreed to perform were reasonable and, as such, made no further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201501567 as a PDF (11.29 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that a close family friend she took along to an independently chaired complaint meeting was not allowed to speak on Mrs C's behalf or ask questions. We found that Mrs C had been asked in advance whether she was bringing a representative and that she told the council she would only be bringing somebody to support her but not represent her. Therefore, we found that the council had acted reasonably. Related reading View Decision Report 201407030 as a PDF (10.78 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C applied for a crisis grant for a door entry system. The next day the council told her that her application had been declined, and Mrs C asked immediately for the decision to be reviewed. She told us that she did not hear from the council for over two weeks so she asked them what had happened to the review. The council told her that the review took place on the day she asked for it, and it was declined again. Mrs C did not believe that the council could make a decision and then review it within 24 hours. She also said that they did not explain to her why a door entry system could not be funded by a crisis grant. The council confirmed that the review was indeed dealt with within one working day, as they were up to date with these at that time. This was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint. We also found, however, that Scottish Government guidance says that the council should have explained why they refused the application. They admitted to us that they did not do this in Mrs C's case so we upheld that complaint.

Miss C was served with a bus lane enforcement charge notice for an incident that occurred within days of her selling her vehicle. The notice said that if she considered she should not have received it, she could make representations, and if the council rejected these, she could appeal to the Scottish Parking Appeals Service. At first, Miss C did not have details of the new owner, but after she got information from the DVLA (for which she had to pay), the council withdrew the notice. They turned down her request for the costs, and said they reserved the right to send her a further notice if the new keeper denied responsibility. Miss C complained that the council failed to deal with the issues and her queries satisfactorily, and unnecessarily put her to the expense of pursuing the matter. We upheld all Miss C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council’s decision not to pay her DVLA expenses was based on a misinterpretation of the regulations. The notice omitted part of the regulation saying that it was only ‘if’ that information was in the recipient’s possession that they must provide it. We found that the council had misunderstood their obligations and had no right to demand this information from Miss C. We also found that the council continued to correspond with Miss C after the DVLA confirmed that she was no longer the registered keeper. The council had accepted this but failed to explain to us why they then continued to deal with Miss C, even after the new keeper had accepted liability for the contravention. They also failed to investigate Miss C’s complaint that email was acknowledged but not replied to. Although the council told us that they carried out all procedures in terms of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, they failed to make clear to Miss C which section of the regulations gave them the authority to ‘withdraw’ the notice rather than cancel it. There was nothing wrong with the council testing out the information about the new keeper. However,

Ms C complained that, after an incident at her child’s school, she was not told that day that her child would be excluded from school the following day. The council said that written notification was provided on the day. This was given to the child to pass on to Ms C, but they did not do so. Our investigation found, however, that the council failed to follow their own guidance which required them to notify a parent orally and in writing on the day a decision is taken to exclude a child. We upheld the complaint and made recommendations.

Mr C complained that the council failed to make reasonable adjustments to their service in order to meet his needs. He went to their office to apply for housing benefit, but was unable to use the customer computers to complete an online application due to his disabilities. He, therefore, requested a paper application but due to the nature of his disabilities he needed this on coloured paper and the council only kept stocks of white paper. In complaining about this, Mr C also raised concerns that the council's postal correspondence was sent to him on white paper. The council noted that they had various options in place to allow customers to access their service. They explained that appointments can be arranged with staff, who can assist with the completion of online applications. Alternatively, customers can apply over the phone or can apply online by visiting their website. We noted Mr C had been able to submit a phone application on the same day he visited the council office. The council also explained that customers can access their benefit accounts online and all correspondence can be viewed. They said that, by offering these alternatives, they were complying with their duties under equality legislation. As Mr C was able to submit an application over the phone, we were satisfied that there was an accessible option for him and he was not prevented from claiming benefit. We were also satisfied that a reasonable alternative existed for him to view general correspondence, by accessing his online account, and we were not aware of any barriers preventing him from doing so. Although it was not for us to reach a view on the legal position, we were assured that the council had carefully considered whether their service was equipped to meet Mr C's needs, and we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201402719 as a PDF (11.44 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to ensure that scheduled refuse and recycling collections took place at his building. We looked at Mr C's complaints to the council, the council's responses, and the council's records of inspection of cleansing operations. We found that there had been problems with collections at times over the past three years. Mr C had to contact the council repeatedly over this time, which indicated a poor standard of service from the council, who appeared to be failing in their responsibility to deal effectively with collections at Mr C's building. We found there was a lack of co-ordination and poor communication about the collections within the relevant council department. We noted that the department was seeking a long-term resolution to the problem. However, based on the evidence, we concluded that the problem had not been resolved. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

When the council created a multi-surface games court in the park close to Mr C's home they removed a number of trees. This dramatically changed the outlook from Mr C's window. Mr C complained when, in spite of repeated assurances that the council would replace foliage and would keep him informed, they did not do this. Mr C complained to us about this and the way in which the council responded to his complaint and enquiries. Our investigation looked at all the available evidence, including the council's correspondence with Mr C, the internal council correspondence and the council's complaints handling procedures. We found that they had acted reasonably by meeting Mr C at the site and in determining that replanting outside Mr C's home was adequate. However, we found that his complaints about the assurances he had been given were not handled promptly and the investigation response he received was not detailed enough to address the issues arising from his complaint.

Mr C had complained to the council some time ago about the refuse collection service in his street. The council apologised and took action to improve Mr C's experience of the service. They told him that the local supervisor would monitor collections, gave him direct contact details to report any further difficulties and assured him that they would fully investigate any further service failings. After giving the council time to allow these measures to be implemented, Mr C felt that the service had not improved and complained again. The council said that they treated this as a new complaint because more than a year had passed since he first complained. They did not, however, acknowledge or respond to it, and Mr C complained again. As well as complaining about refuse collection he also raised concerns about the council's complaints handling, but they did not pick up on this and Mr C asked us to look at his complaint. Our investigation found that the council's complaints handling procedure (CHP), which is based on the model CHP from our Complaints Standards Authority, says that staff should use discretion when applying timescales. We found that Mr C contacted the council on an almost monthly basis when the service did not improve, which meant that his second complaint was not a new one. It was about an ongoing issue and should have been dealt with at stage two of their CHP. The CHP also says that the council will establish what a complaint is about at the start, but we saw no evidence that they did so in Mr C's case. Neither did we see evidence that the stage two response had senior executive sign-off which, again, is contrary to the CHP. We found that the council did not handle Mr C's complaint reasonably, and made two recommendations.

Mr C was contacted by the council regarding outstanding council tax arrears in 2009. He began a payment plan with one of the council's debt collection companies (company 1) and continued to pay them until December 2013. In December 2013 Mr C was contacted by another of the council's debt collection companies (company 2). They told him that his arrears were with them and said he needed to set up a payment plan with them. Mr C contacted the council to confirm that he should pay company 2, rather than company 1 as he had been doing previously. The council responded telling Mr C that his arrears had been passed to company 2 much earlier than December 2013. Mr C complained that the council had not kept him reasonably informed about where his arrears were and whom he was meant to pay. He also complained that company 1 had not cancelled his original payment plan when his arrears had moved. Our investigation found that the council could not provide evidence that Mr C had been told about the change of debt collection company from company 1 to company 2. They had also given contradictory information about when Mr C's debt had moved and where to. Because of this, Mr C was not sure whether the council had received all the payments he had made. They also had not followed their complaints handling procedure in responding to his complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had not kept him reasonably informed about his arrears and made recommendations to address this. However, we found that according to the terms of the contract company 1 and company 2 have with the council on collecting arrears, the responsibility to notify the customer of a change in arrangements lies with the new company rather than the old. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Ms C was considering making an offer to buy a property and called the council to ask if the property was eligible for a parking permit. When she was told that it was, she asked that they confirm this by email. Ms C received an email shortly afterwards, and instructed her solicitor to submit an offer. She then read the email and discovered that it did not confirm that the property was eligible for a permit. She got in touch with the council, who said that the property was not eligible for a permit, but accepted that she had previously been given incorrect information. Ms C also believed that the council promised her compensation during a phone conversation, but then did not offer this. Ms C complained but the council remained of the view that compensation was not merited. Ms C complained to us and we reviewed the available recordings of phone conversations. We upheld her complaint that the council had given her incorrect information about the criteria for the issuing of parking permits. However, we found no evidence that she was promised compensation, and did not uphold this complaint.

When Mr A was refused a street trader's licence, he asked the council for a statement of reasons for the refusal. He then complained about the refusal, the reasons given for refusal and the time taken to provide those reasons. He remained dissatisfied when he received the council's responses and Mr C complained to us on his behalf. The council argued that various court opinions indicated that the timescale given in legislation for the provision of statements of reasons was not mandatory. We considered the council's argument but decided that the view courts may take in the event of appeals being made to them was not relevant to a complaint about administrative handling. We, therefore, upheld that complaint along with others relating to the council's handling of Mr A's complaints.

Ms C complained that the council failed to cut back trees outside her property. Ms C told us the trees were overhanging her house to the extent that they were nearly touching her roof. Ms C said her television reception had been affected, and she was living in constant darkness on the side of her house facing the trees, which meant she had stopped using her living room due to the lack of natural light. Ms C said her roof was black with moss from the trees, and she had to clean up leaves and bird droppings regularly. We found that the council had told Ms C the trees would be dealt with; however, nearly a year later, the work had not been carried out. The council said there was a breakdown in communication between work teams, which led to confusion between shifts and, as a result, there was a delay in the work being started. We upheld Ms C's complaint as it was unacceptable that the work had not been carried out. In our recommendations to the council, we had asked them to arrange for Ms C's roof to be cleaned. The council refused, and so we asked them to make her a goodwill payment of £100 to Ms C instead. The council again refused. Their reason, in both instances, was that payment or any works other than the actual tree works was disproportionate to their failure to deal with the trees. We were disappointed by the council's intransigence as, in our view, it was entirely reasonable for the council to make a tangible expression of regret, in line with our office's guidance on apology, given the effect that their very poor service had on Ms C.

Mr C was unhappy with the council's lack of action in dealing with three large trees outside his home, which he said were not only dangerous, but also overhung his garden. Mr C also said that the trees, which had broken branches hanging from them, had caused damage to cars in his driveway. Mr C reported the matter to the council in January 2013 and again in October 2013. In December 2013 he was told this would be dealt with as an emergency and a council representative called at his home in January 2014 to look at the trees. As the work had still not been undertaken in June 2014 he again contacted the council. He told us in August 2014 that the trees had still not been trimmed. We found that a works order was put in place with effect from October 2013 with a completion date of October 2014 so, technically, the council still had time to complete the work by their target. However, we found that they did not tell Mr C what that target date was. This failure to pass on information led to Mr C's belief that there was a delay and, for that reason, we upheld his complaint.

Mr C was issued with a fine for driving in a bus lane. He emailed the council appealing this, but did not receive a response. The council then wrote to him, telling him that a surcharge had been applied as the fine had not been paid. As the council did not hear from Mr C, they then passed the matter to sheriff officers to recover the unpaid charges. The sheriff officers wrote to Mr C warning that if he did not pay, they would take action to recover the amount through arrestment of earnings (where Mr C's employer would be instructed to deduct the money owed to the council directly from Mr C's wages), which would incur further charges. Three months later, the charges remained unpaid, and the sheriff officers carried out enforcement action. Mr C then contacted the council to complain that his appeal had not been dealt with. The council investigated this and said that they had no record of having received his email. However, they looked into the concerns he had raised, and advised him that there were no problems identified with when he was recorded in the bus lane. Mr C accepted this but remained unhappy that he had to pay increased charges because they did not receive his appeal. We were satisfied that the council reviewed Mr C's email evidence and responded to his appeal. They also checked for evidence of a system failure and concluded that the email did not reach them for unknown reasons. In terms of Mr C's concerns that he was disadvantaged in terms of the additional charges applied, we found that there was a missed opportunity in him checking matters related to his appeal with the council when he received their further correspondence saying that the fine had been increased due to non-payment, and when the sheriff officers wrote to him about the unpaid fine. It was likely that the missing appeal would have been identified and the increased charges might have been avoided had Mr C contacted the council at these times. In view of this, we did not consider that the cou

Mr C, who is a Member of Parliament, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A) about a fine Mr A received for driving in a bus lane. Mr A was dissatisfied that he did not receive the initial penalty charge notice, and, therefore, was unaware that he had been fined. He said that when he did find out about it, when a charge certificate was sent to his home address, a surcharge had been applied and the council refused him his right of appeal as they had not received it within the prescribed time limit. Mr C told the council that Mr A did not dispute the offence, but was concerned that he had not received the original charge notice allowing him the opportunity to appeal and pay the lower charge. Mr C said that the council had not replied to two emails Mr A sent them about this. The council said that there were no procedural errors in the handling of the charge notice, but offered Mr A the opportunity to pay the reduced charge which he subsequently paid. We acknowledged that Mr A tried on two separate occasions to raise concerns about not receiving the charge notice, but we found that he had not used the correct email address. We did not identify any failings by the council in processing the charge notice, and, on balance, considered that they had acted reasonably in offering Mr A the opportunity to pay the reduced charge. Related reading View Decision Report 201304320 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that City Parking (Glasgow) had ignored the findings of the adjudicator of the Scottish Parking Appeals Service. He was unhappy about an incident where a parking warden told him that he could not stop outside a hotel to collect luggage. On being warned he would incur a fine if he stopped there, he moved the car to a parking bay and paid for a ticket. He was unhappy about this because he had previously gone to the parking adjudicator about an earlier fine involving a similar issue. He had won that case and believed that this entitled him to stop on a single yellow line to load or unload passengers. We found that while the council's interpretation of the traffic order differed from that of the parking adjudicator, each case is dealt with on its merits and the parking adjudicator's decision does not set a precedent. We also found that the parking adjudicator's decision did not give Mr C future rights under the traffic order that governs parking in the city. Related reading View Decision Report 201400107 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had not collected his recycling bins for ten weeks over the festive period, and were ignoring his calls for an uplift. The council told him that there had been a backlog over that period. They arranged for an uplift, apologised for the delay and said that they would monitor this to ensure he was receiving regular collections. Despite this, they then failed to collect his bin in the eight weeks after his complaint, and he complained to us. After we got in touch with the council about this, they wrote to Mr C to explain that the reason for the problems was that they did not have a key to the back court area. The refuse depot had a key, but the recycling depot had misplaced it. They arranged for a copy to be made, allowing the recycling team access to the bin area. They apologised for their service and the problems Mr C had experienced and said they would monitor the situation to ensure he received regular collections. The council's policies say that recycling should be collected at least once a month and this did not happen. We noted that if when Mr C first complained the council had explained and apologised as they did later, and had they effectively monitored his collections as they said they would, he might not have needed to complain to us. As his recycling was not collected in accordance with the council's policies, we upheld the complaint but because they had already explained and apologised, we made only one recommendation.

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to maintain and repair a section of road near his home in line with their obligations. He also said that when he reported pot holes to the council, they failed to carry out repairs within the required timescales. The council said that they met their responsibilities in terms of roads inspection and maintenance and that when Mr C reported problems to them they took action to repair them within an appropriate timescale. We obtained the council's records which showed that they had inspected the road, as required by their code of practice, and where defects were identified, they had carried out repairs. They also provided records showing that they had responded to Mr C's reports of pot holes and had carried out necessary repairs the following day. As the council had met their responsibilities in terms of the inspection and repairs, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201302706 as a PDF (10.98 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C had council tax arrears, and had made arrangements (with sheriff officers acting for the council) to clear these. She told us that she had not disputed the arrears but when she was interested in buying her home and asked the council to issue her with a right to buy certificate, they had unreasonably declined to do so because she had uncollected council tax arrears. However, she had an invoice from the sheriff officers saying that her account for the period in dispute was clear. She told us that the information from the council about her council tax account was inconsistent and inaccurate; and that the council unreasonably expected her to keep payment receipts for 20 years. We were provided with only limited evidence from both Ms C and the council, but the council confirmed that in 2010 a request from solicitors acting for Ms C for a right to buy certificate was declined on that basis. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint about this because the council’s records showed that her account was in arrears in 2013. However, our investigation found a disparity in the information that sheriff officers acting for the council had given Ms C, and that provided by the council. The council have a duty in law to collect council tax, and we found nothing restricting them from taking steps to collect old debts. However, as it was unclear what arrears were outstanding in recent years, we upheld this point of complaint and made recommendations. It was too late for us to investigate actions taken 20 years ago, and we explained to Ms C that we could not consider events from that time.