SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained about the information provided to him when he was awarded expenses by the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber). Mr C was made aware of the steps of the Tribunal's process up until the Auditor of the Court of Session decided what amount was due as expenses, and the Tribunal issued an order for payment. Mr C did not follow that information. As this was only the second time that the tribunal awarded expenses, we considered it was reasonable that the administrative staff did not know this part of the procedure until informed of the process by a member of judicial staff. The next part of the procedure was covered by diligence procedure under Scots Law and is not distinct for this tribunal. Administrative staff were unaware Mr C did not know this and therefore did not address this. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Mr C also complained about a failure to provide a clear response to his complaint. Mr C made it clear he did not know the difference between an Order for compensation and an Order for expenses and it would have been helpful if this had been discussed with him. Mr C also received correspondence that did not address his complaint and stated that he was looking for legal advice, when that was not the case. There was a lack of understanding of how complex the procedure may appear to someone who had never been to the tribunal before. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We noted that the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service had apologised to Mr C and made changes to their website to ensure information was clearer. We did not make any recommendations in this case but did included feedback to the organisation that an expression of empathy for those who found the process complex would be reasonable to expect in complaint handling. Related reading View Decision Report 201908081 as a PDF (24.6 KB) Updated: February 3, 2026

Mr C had a decree granted against him at court for a debt. The court sent a notification of this to the organisation that maintains the register of decrees. Mr C paid the debt, and was told that his name was taken off the register. However, some time later, it became apparent to Mr C that his name had not been taken off the register. Mr C complained to the registry organisation, who explained that his name had been entered on the register twice, as the court had sent them a duplicate record of the decree. Mr C complained that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) unreasonably sent a duplicate record to the registry organisation. He also complained about SCTS' handling of his complaint. We looked at a copy of the information that the court sent to the registry organisation, which showed that SCTS had sent a duplicate record. We found that there was a responsibility on SCTS not to send a duplicate record, and so we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Regarding complaints handling, we found that SCTS had mistakenly treated Mr C's complaint as if he were making a claim for financial compensation, rather than as a complaint about an administrative matter. SCTS acknowledged that they did not keep Mr C updated with the progress of his complaint, and that there had been a breakdown in communication between the court and SCTS headquarters. SCTS said that they would address this problem, and we asked them for evidence that they have done this. We upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C was required to attend court on two occasions as a witness, and a victim, of charges relating to assault and threatening behaviour. Mrs C was identified as a vulnerable witness, and arrangements were made for statutory special measures to support her in giving evidence, namely witness screens and a witness supporter. However, outside the courtroom the accused was able to move freely throughout the courthouse, except for the witness waiting room. Mrs C said that she tried to stay in the witness room for her own safety, but that she had to leave at some points as there were no toilets in the room, and she was also required to leave at lunchtime, when the court building closed. Mrs C said the accused waited outside the court building on one occasion, and also approached her and intimidated her within the court building. Mrs C first complained about her experience to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), who told her that security within the court building was the responsibility of the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service (SCTS). She then complained to the SCTS. While the SCTS said they were restricted by the physical layout of the building, they also said that they could have made other arrangements, in addition to the statutory special measures. SCTS said these arrangements could have included: providing a separate access route, or working with police colleagues to stagger departure times; providing access to a different toilet; and arranging for Mrs C to remain within the building during lunchtime. SCTS said these arrangements were not provided because they were not made aware by COPFS, or Witness Support, of any particular issues of intimidation or harassment. After investigating this matter we found that COPFS and SCTS each gave different versions of the process that should be followed for notifying SCTS of the need for additional arrangements, aside from statutory special measures. Neither organisation gave evidence that their version of the

Mr C complained that he was not fully informed about the process for his court case to be heard in his absence. Mr C called the court to advise that his wife would be unable to attend the hearing due to ill health. He said that he was told that as paperwork had been submitted, the case could be heard on the basis of those papers in his absence. The paperwork had not actually been submitted via the correct legal process and therefore, the case was dismissed as there were no attendees and no paperwork to determine the case. Mr C complained to the court service about this, but was informed that they do not record phone calls and therefore did not have evidence of what was discussed when he phoned to advise his wife would not be in attendance. The court service were satisfied that Mr C had not followed the correct process and said it was appropriate that the case was dismissed. Mr C asked us to investigate the case and we gathered additional information from the court. We noted that they provided content from a 'remarks' field on their case management system which summarised Mr C's call following the hearing and when he wanted to make a complaint. We established that these fields are not used frequently but that information could have been recorded when Mr C called prior to the hearing. We also established that while the court website explained about the process involved in this type of case, Mr C had had his paperwork returned from the court with no indication that he needed to have this served and re-submit. On balance, we concluded this was unreasonable as without any information about the process, it was unclear to Mr C that his paperwork had not been accepted by the court. The content of his call could not be clarified as it was not documented or recorded despite the court having the facility to do so. We upheld the complaint.