spso annual report 2011-12

ScottishPublicServicesOmbudsman

AnnualReport 2011>2012

10YEARS

Contents

Ombudsman’s Introduction 4

The Ten Year Journey 6

Casework Performance 8

Making a Difference 12

Complaints Standards Authority 15

Local Government 18

Health 24

Housing 30

Scottish Government and Devolved Administration 36

Further and Higher Education 42

Equality and Diversity 45

Governance and Accountability 49

Independent Service Delivery Review 50

Financial Performance 52

Strategic Plan 2012 –16 54

Vision and Values 55

Business Plan 2012 – 2013 56

Appendix – Statistics 57

SPSO ANNUAL REPORT 2011>2012PAGE 4

A Scottish solution

As Scotland and the UK move to testnew constitutional waters, it is worthreminding ourselves of the distinctcharacter of Scotland’s Ombudsman.In setting up the SPSO afterdevolution, Parliament decided thatnew arrangements should provide formuch more than a simple transfer ofthe functions of the existing Scottishoffices of UK ombudsman services.The then Scottish Executive and thenew Parliament took an altogethermore radical step in considering,consulting on and debating whata modern complaints system inScotland would look like.

The result was legislation that aimedto provide a simpler and moreaccessible way for people to makecomplaints about public bodies.The need for members of the publicto complain through their electedmember of Parliament was replacedwith direct access. Today, citizensof Scotland can and do bring theircomplaints directly to the SPSO,either themselves or with the help ofan advocate, using a wide rangeof means of communication. Many ofthese cases are covered in the media,increasing our visibility to the public.

The SPSO Act 2002 broughttogether the four previousOmbudsman services (the ScottishParliamentary Commissioner forAdministration, the Health ServiceCommissioner for Scotland,the Commissioner for LocalAdministration in Scotland and theHousing Association Ombudsmanfor Scotland) under the leadershipof Scotland’s first SPSO, ProfessorAlice Brown. The offices weremerged and the Act also includedprovision for the new office totake over the Mental WelfareCommission’s function ofinvestigating complaints relatingto mental health, and to considercomplaints about the Enterprise

bodies in Scotland. In 2005, theSPSO’s jurisdiction was furtherexpanded to cover colleges anduniversities and, in the past twoyears, complaints about prisons,water and sewerage providers and,most recently, the canal network,were added to our remit.

One-stop shopThe ‘one door’ solution wasconsidered increasingly relevant in2002, when the delivery of publicservices was becoming morecoordinated through programmessuch as joint partnership andCommunity Planning arrangements.Today, joint delivery of services is anapproach that is still very much alive,with integration of health and socialcare services underway. This raisescomplexities as these are areas withoverlapping procedures and a varietyof legislative routes for complainants.I see our role as working effectivelywith policy makers to ensure thatcomplaints procedures are simpleand clearly signposted, andhighlighting that the needs ofservice users should be paramount.

Flexibility, efficiencyand effectivenessSince the SPSO opened its doorson 23 October 2002, the officehas endeavoured to live up to theaspirations of our founding legislationand to be a modern complaintsservice. I believe that over the pastdecade the SPSO has moved withthe times, demonstrating flexibilityand a can-do approach on eachoccasion it has been asked toexpand its remit. To do thissuccessfully, we have developedexpertise in an increasing number ofjurisdictions, and now have a proventrack record in taking on new areaswith no loss of service to users.

We have also demonstratedefficiency in managing our resourcesto deal with an ever increasingnumber of complaints. Since 2002,

Ombudsman’s introduction

I believe that overthe past decadethe SPSO hasmoved with thetimes, demonstratingflexibility and acan-do approachon each occasion ithas been asked toexpand its remit

SPSO ANNUAL REPORT 2011>2012 PAGE 5

the SPSO has handled approximately35,000 enquiries and complaints.Each year has seen a continuingincrease in contacts, and in2011–12 we dealt with a recordnumber of complaints, with a 12%increase in receipts. We achievedthis against a background ofreduced funding. Over the threeyear period between 2010–11and 2013–14 we committed toachieving, as a minimum, a 15%real term decrease in our budgetand we remain on target to do so.

We are also expanding theamount of learning we share fromour consideration of complaints.Since April 2011, we have beenable to report on many more ofour decisions, and we now postapproximately 50 decisions amonth on our website. Thesereports help the public and serviceproviders understand what kinds ofsubjects we can, and cannot, lookat, and the outcomes we are ableto achieve. To maximise theaccessibility and relevance ofthe material, the decisions aresearchable on our website bycategories such as service provider,subject and outcome. We arecontinuing to publish reports of fullinvestigations that meet our publicinterest criteria. Many of thesecases are covered in the media,increasing our visibility to the public.

Improving complaintsproceduresAs well as our role as the final stagein handling complaints about anincreasing number of publicservices, we have been given asignificant additional statutory role.The Public Services Reform(Scotland) Act 2010 gave us theauthority to lead the developmentof simplified and standardisedcomplaints handling procedures(CHPs) across the public sector.Our internal unit, the ComplaintsStandards Authority (CSA)developed a Statement ofComplaints Handling Principles,

which was approved by theScottish Parliament in 2011.The complaints handlingprocedures of all public serviceproviders under our jurisdictionmust now be based on theseprinciples. The CSA also developedGuidance on a model complaintshandling procedure, and is inthe process of developing, inpartnership with public serviceproviders, model CHPs for thedifferent areas of public servicesthat they deliver. Much of thegroundwork for the model CHPs,and how compliance andperformance against these will bemonitored, was laid in 2011–12through extensive work andconsultation with key partners,including service providers, usersand regulators. Model procedureshave now been developed for twosectors – local government andregistered social landlords. There ismuch more about the CSA in adedicated chapter later in this report.

Complaints trendsIn last year’s annual report I saidthat the level of partly and fullyupheld complaints of those thatwere valid for SPSO, was, at 34%,unacceptable. In 2011–12that figure has risen to 39%.This means that I am finding fault inwell over a third of cases that havealready been investigated by serviceproviders and I find this worrying.

To reduce this, public bodiesmust adopt better processesand policies and, crucially, theymust develop a culture of goodcomplaints handling. They mustequip staff to make the rightdecision the first time round anddeliver that decision in a reasonablemanner and within an appropriateperiod of time. The model CHPsshould act as a sound framework,and the CSA has developed a rangeof training tools to help empowerand skill up staff.

More encouragingly, there is acontinuing downwards trend in the

level of premature complaints(complaints that come to our officebefore they have completed thecomplaints procedure of the serviceprovider). The overall level ofpremature complaints has fallenfrom 51% in 2009–10 to 45% in2010–11 and 43% in 2011–12.This trend is welcome for a numberof reasons. Firstly, it reduces thefrustration of people who bring theircomplaint to us too early, only to beguided back to the service provider.Secondly, it allows the provider torespond to the complaint morequickly after the incident that gaverise to it. Thirdly, it means thatSPSO resources are used forthe purpose for which they areprovided – as a final tier complaintsresolver.

Looking to the futureTen years after its founding, theSPSO is now woven into the fabricof the Scottish administrative justiceframework. It is handling morecomplaints about more areas thanever. It is more efficient than everand is feeding back more lessonsfrom its decisions. Importantly,it is playing a vital role in improvingthe procedures and culture ofcomplaints handling by publicservice providers in Scotland.

Delivering our objectives in thecurrent economic climate will requirecreativity and collaboration. Thereare serious financial challengesahead for all of us in the publicsector. At the SPSO, we havealready taken steps to do more withless, and by working in partnershipwith others to improve complaintshandling in the public sector wehave an opportunity to make overallsavings to the public purse.

I look forward to continuing to workto strengthen our role, to leadingfurther improvements to ourservice, and to increasing ourimpact in the years ahead.

Jim MartinOmbudsman

YEARS

Remit:

> Scottish Executive andother devolved agencies

> NHS services

> Local authorities

> Registered Social Landlords

> Enterprise bodies

> Mental welfare


The ten year journey

... the development of amodern complaints systemshould be seen as integralto plans to improve publicservices in Scotland.Alice Brown2002–03 Annual Report

2002Open forbusiness

SPSO Act 2002 came into effecton 23 October, creating aone-stop shop for complaintsabout public bodies in Scotland.It merged the offices of theScottish Parliamentary andHealth Service Ombudsman, theLocal Government Ombudsmanfor Scotland and the HousingAssociation Ombudsmanfor Scotland.

We see our role as beingpart of a wider process of goodgovernance and the delivery ofgood public services.Alice Brown2003–04 Annual Report

2003An accessibleOmbudsman

Focus on the SPSO’s drive toreduce barriers for people withcomplaints, and to encouragemore simplicity and greaterconsistency in complaintsprocesses in the public sector.

We recommend thatScotland should considerlegislation to allow forproviding an apology withoutadmission of liability.Alice Brown2004–05 Annual Report

2004

Worked to enhance ownaccountability and to increaseaccountability of bodies underSPSO jurisdiction. Advocatedfor an Apology Bill and for reformof public sector complaintshandling procedures.

Ensuringaccountability

... a single complaint froman individual can challenge ourmost powerful institutions andbring about changes thatimprove the lives of many.Alice Brown2005–06 Annual Report

2005Improvingpublicservices

Remit widened to include complaintsabout further and higher education.Simplified complaints processintroduced in the NHS, making iteasier for the public to bringcomplaints to the Ombudsman.Stepped up SPSO publication ofinvestigation reports, which aimedto share learning for improvement.

Our priority is to deliver thebest service we can to the public,and our challenge is always how toachieve that aim through the mostefficient use of our resources.Alice Brown2006–07 Annual Report

2006

Significantly increased caseloadbrought challenges and highlighted theneed for proportionality in handlingcomplaints. SPSO strengthened linkswith bodies such as regulators,inspectors and auditors, continued tocampaign for apology legislation andlaunched Valuing Complaints initiativeto support bodies in handlingcomplaints.

Promotingproportionality


My aim has been toensure the integrity of the roleof ombudsman, in order tomaintain the faith that peoplehave in us as an independentand impartial final stagecomplaints resolution service.Alice Brown, 2007–08 Annual Report

2007Restoringtrust

Emphasised how handling complaintswell is an important part of restoringpeople’s trust in public services.Ombudsman played a significant rolein the Sinclair group on complaintshandling, which recommended thatSPSO build on Valuing Complaintswork and be the ‘design authority’ tolead the standardising and simplifyingof complaints handing proceduresacross Scotland. Ombudsman alsoinvolved in commissioning research ontribunals and administrative justice.

Better complaints processes willstrengthen the public’s voice about howservices are delivered and will supportproviders in responding more effectivelyto complaints and using the learningfrom them to improve services.Jim Martin, 2009–10 Annual Report

2009Changingtimes

New Ombudsman in place fromMay 2009. Overhaul of SPSO’scomplaints handling processes witha focus on reducing case handlingtimes while maintaining the qualityand impact of decisions. Beganspecific reporting on equalitiesmatters and asked Parliament to lookat closer links with a committee toenhance accountability and sharelearning more fully. Further progresson implementing the Sinclairrecommendations, and SPSOtraining unit opened for business.

2011Simplifyingthe complaintslandscape

One-stop shop’s remit furtherexpanded to include complaintsabout most water and sewerageproviders and about prisoner healthcare. SPSO published hundreds ofdecisions on its website, to furtherpublic understanding of whatit can and cannot look at and theoutcomes it can achieve, and toshare the learning from complaintsto improve services. Standardisedcomplaints handling procedurespublished for local authority andregistered social landlord sectors.

There are multiple benefits to bothusers and service providers in simplified,standardised complaints processes and Ihave every confidence that in future we willlook back on the CSA as having broughtabout a sea change in the culture ofcomplaints handling in the public sector.Jim Martin, 2010–11 Annual Report

2010Changingthe culture

Remit widened to include complaintsabout Scottish prisons. SPSO set up aninternal unit, the Complaints StandardsAuthority, to consult on and progress, inpartnership with key stakeholders, thedevelopment of principles of goodcomplaints handling and guidance onmodel complaints handling procedures.Legislative changes enabled SPSO topublicise many more decisions.

2008Right firsttime

Focus on getting things right firsttime and sharing the learning fromcomplaint outcomes to improveservices. Scoping and partnershipwork to take forward the Sinclair reportrecommendations got underway. The SPSO’s

role and remitcontinueto widen

2012>

I would like us to worktogether to ensure that peoplehave an accessible and fairprocess for airing grievances,and that legitimate complaintsare heard and lead tochanges for the better.Jim Martin, 2008–09 Annual Report

Ten years after itsfounding, the SPSO is nowwoven into the fabric of theScottish administrative justiceframework. It is handling morecomplaints about more areasthan ever. It is more efficientthan ever and is feeding backmore lessons from its decisions.Importantly, it is playing a vitalrole in improving the proceduresand culture of complaintshandling by public serviceproviders in Scotland.Jim Martin, 2011–12 Annual Report


Measuring our performance

This section deals with caseworkperformance and focuses on ourfirst strategic objective – ‘to providea high quality, user-focussedindependent complaints handlingservice’. Other areas of our businessare covered elsewhere in this report,for example in the chapters dealingwith governance and accountabilityand financial performance.

The three drivers of strongperformance in casework handlingare process efficiency, quality ofdecisions and customer satisfaction,and this is reflected in ourperformance measures. Ensuringrobustness, quality, timeliness,empathy and proportionality in ourconsideration and investigation ofcomplaints is not an easy challenge.We work extensively with our staff,to provide them with the knowledgeand skills they need to carry outtheir work. We have an ongoingcommitment to developing ourpeople through, for example, our

work to maintain our Investors inPeople status. We were recognisedas achieving the IIP standard inMarch 2011 and are committed tocontinuous improvement in the areasidentified through the IIP process.

We review and develop our businessperformance measures on an annualbasis and focus on outcomes ratherthan activities. Performance againstthese measures is reported on aquarterly basis to the seniormanagement team, and to theAudit and Advisory Committee atleast three times a year.

Enquiries and complaintsreceived

We received 625 enquiries,compared with 755 in the previousyear. As well as receiving a recordnumber of complaints in 2011–12(3,918), we dealt with a recordnumber (3,748). Productivity keptpace with demand, despite theadditional resources commited totaking on new areas of responsibility.

Casework performanceNiki Maclean, Director of Corporate Services

Ensuring robustness,quality, timeliness,empathy andproportionality in ourconsideration andinvestigation ofcomplaints is notan easy challenge

Total enquiries and complaints received by year

2009–10 2010 –11 2011 –12

Enquiry Complaint

3,307 3,489 3,918

903 755

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

625


Who the complaintswere about

There was little change in thenumber of complaints we receivedabout those sectors where we hadnot seen a change in our remit,such as health and localgovernment. There was asignificant increase in the numberof complaints classed as ScottishGovernment and devolvedadministration, because prisonsand water bodies fall into thiscategory1. Complaints aboutthese new areas accounted for703 (78%) of the 903 complaintsreceived about the sector.

Being proportionateand having impact

Under the new process we put inplace in May 2010, our Advice andEarly Resolution teams see thecomplaints first, and check their‘fitness for SPSO’. They deal withthe vast majority of the complaintswe receive, passing to theInvestigations team only thosecases that require further in-depthexamination before reachinga decision.

Most of our decisions oncomplaints are given in decisionletters. These are sent directlyto the complainant and theorganisation complained about.We take the view that it isproportionate to do this andto report publicly in full to theParliament only the smallproportion of the complaintswe receive that meet our publicreporting criteria.

Under legislation that came intoforce in April 2011, we were able topublish the learning from decisionletters as well as investigationreports. We lay a decisions reportbefore the Parliament each month,and, like investigation reports, makethese available on our website.Feedback from authorities on this

wider publication is positive and weare pleased that bodies read thereports and share learning fromthem internally to identify possibleissues and prevent similarproblems from arising in their ownorganisations. We have also hadpositive feedback from members ofthe public, who find that the reportshelp them understand our processand what we may be able toachieve for them.

Another way we make sure thatour consideration of complaintsmakes a difference is by followingup on the recommendations wemake. We set a deadline for eachrecommendation, and ask bodiesto provide evidence that therecommendation has beencomplied with. In 2011–12,88% of recommendations werecomplied with by the deadlinewe had set. In total we made619 recommendations, many ofwhich are detailed in the sectoralchapters later in this report.

How the complaintsbreak down

During 2011–12 we respondedto 626 enquiries and determined3,748 complaints. We resolved2,985 of the complaints byproviding advice or guidance to

the complainant or public bodyconcerned. Of those complaints,1,612 reached us prematurely –i.e. they had not completed thecomplaints process of theorganisation concerned.

This is an improvement in theoverall rate of premature complaintsreaching SPSO, from 51% in2009–10 to 45% in 2010–11to 43% last year. There were,however, sectoral differences.We saw no change in the numberof premature complaints about thehealth sector (where they totalled31% of all health complaintsreceived). The rate for localauthorities fell from 55% to52% and in further and highereducation it rose from 31% to33%. Premature complaintsabout housing associations (whichyear-on-year are the highest of allsectors) saw a further rise from64% to 67%, and those about theScottish Government and devolvedadministration went up from 30%to 36%.

We investigated 763 complaintsin depth, determining 707 withdecision letters and 56 byinvestigation report. We made420 recommendations in decisionletters and 199 in investigationreports.

YEARSTotal enquiries and complaints received by sector in 2011 – 12

Housing associations303 (7%)

Local government1,610 (35%)

Health1,041 (23%)

Other (unknown orout of jurisdiction)542 (12%)

Scottish Government& devolvedadministration(including prisonsand water)915 (20%)

Further & highereducation 132 (3%)

1 Some water complaints are about private sector providers but have been classified here for ease of reference.


Casework performance

Decision letter outcomes 2011–12

Not upheld417 (59%)

Fully upheld82 (11.6%)

Some upheld167 (23.6%)

Outcome not achievable/no decision reached41 (5.8%)

Investigation report outcomes 2011–12

Not upheld4 (7.1%)

Fully upheld28 (50%)

Some upheld21 (37.5%)

Discontinued or withdrawn(no decision reached)3 (5.4%)

Outcomes of our decisions

There are sectoral differences in therate of complaints we uphold indecision letters and investigationreports. These are explained in thechapters about the different sectorslater in this report.

Investigation report outcomes

Of the 56 cases that reached thisstage, we discontinued three andpublished 52 reports about a totalof 53 complaints.

Quality assurance

In 2011–12, we continued todevelop and improve our qualityassurance process. Following apilot scheme, we implemented arevised process in April 2011,which was reviewed by our internalauditors, the Scottish Legal AidBoard.

Customer satisfactionBackground

There is no statutory requirementfor the SPSO to gather serviceusers’ views. However, as abody providing a public service, werecognise the value of listening tocomplainants’ views about us. Onlypeople using our service can tell uswhat they expected from us, howthey felt about their interaction withour staff and whether they thoughttheir needs were met. Over thepast six years, we have regularlysought user feedback as a meansof measuring our performance andinforming improvements.

How we havegathered feedback

Since 2006, we have used anumber of different methods to askcomplainants for their views.From 2007–2010, we gatheredfeedback through paper postalsurveys, carried out byindependent researchers.

The last survey gathered responsesin the first 3 months of 2009 and2010, and compared the resultsfrom those periods. At the end ofthat survey, the researchers’ advicewas that we had maximised thebenefit of measuring satisfaction inthat way. They recommended thatwe use focus groups for futuresurvey work, which they said wouldgive us more qualitative informationabout what people liked and didnot like about our service. Wepointed to this in the ‘future action’section of our response to the

December 2010 survey where wealso noted that we had put a newcomplaints handling process inplace in May 2010.

We said that we wanted the newprocess to have had an opportunityto settle into place before qualitativesurvey work about our service wascarried out. In December 2011,we decided that the time wasright to progress this work. Theresearchers’ report Listening toComplainants was published inAugust 2012.


Satisfaction link to outcome

As is the case with all ombudsman’soffices, complainant satisfactionlevels tend to reflect satisfaction withthe outcome of a complaint and,given the legislative constraints withinwhich ombudsmen work, levels ofsatisfaction are generally low. Thiswas recognised in previous SPSOcomplainant surveys and in Listeningto Complainantswhere the reportsays:

‘Unsurprisingly, people’s viewswere largely coloured by the finaloutcome in their case. Those thatdid not achieve the outcome theyhad hoped for – either becausethe SPSO was not able to take ontheir complaint or because theircomplaint was not upheld –tended to be dissatisfied. Very

understandably, their strength offeeling was often linked to thenature of their complaint, with thosethat had made a complaint relatingto very difficult and personal eventsoften left very disappointed by theircontact with the SPSO.

Those that had reached the latterstages of the SPSO’s processes,and who had their complaintentirely or mostly upheld, werealmost all fulsome in their praise forthe organisation. For these people,it was clear that having achievedtheir original goal of holding thecomplained about organisation toaccount, and, crucially, of feelingthey had done all they could toprevent mistakes being repeated,was of immeasurable value.’

All the report’s key messages andrecommendations for possibleactions or changes wereconsidered by our seniormanagement team and the majorityof them were accepted. Manyof the recommendations echoconclusions drawn from our qualityassurance process and along withthose findings, the survey resultshave been a key source offeedback informing our 2012–13service improvement plan. Thereport, our response and theactions are available on ourwebsite.

YEARS


Ten years ago, in her introductionto the SPSO’s first annual report,the then Ombudsman, ProfessorAlice Brown, wrote: ‘In the spirit ofour founding legislation, the newoffice aims to raise public awarenessof its existence, to improve accessto the service for members of thepublic, to provide an informalresolution to complaints whereappropriate, and to promotegood administrative practicesin public services.’

Ten years later, those sameprinciples of raising awareness,improving access and promotinggood administrative practice guideour second, third and fourthstrategic objectives. These can besummarised as ‘supporting publicservice improvement in Scotland’,‘improving complaints handling bypublic service providers’ and‘simplifying the design and operationof the complaints handling systemin Scottish public services’.

These areas lend themselves lesseasily to performance measures,but to support our work we havedeveloped annual outputs andtargets. In relation to the secondstrategic objective, we measure areassuch as the amount of self-initiatedmaterial we place in the publicdomain, the volume of visitors toour website and the press coveragewe receive. The output of ourComplaints Standards Authority(CSA) contributes in particular to thethird and fourth strategic objectivesand is covered in more detail in thenext chapter. Strategic objectivefour also covers our engagementwith relevant bodies on proposedchanges to complaints handlinglegislation and regulations, whichis covered in this chapter.

We begin by outlining the keyimprovements we made in 2011–12towards achieving our secondstrategic objective and how our workcan be seen in relation to nationalpolicy initiatives such as the ChristieCommission and the ScottishNational Performance Framework.In the final section, we describe howwe have managed the challenges ofour widening remit in 2011–12.

Raising awareness

As we outline earlier in this report, asignificant change in 2011–12 wasthat, due to legislative changes, wewere able to exercise greater flexibilityin how we publish our decisions.From June 2011 (when we beganto publish the outcome of decisionletters) to March 2012, we reported482 decisions. We plan to publishtwo thematic reports in 2012–13,based on themes emerging fromthis greater volume of information.

We have also continued to sharestrategic lessons from complaintsthrough our monthly Ombudsman’sCommentary. We issue this asan e-newsletter to over 1,200subscribers and use it tocommunicate specific pointsof good and bad practice incomplaints handling, as well asgeneral messages and updatesfrom the Ombudsman. We alsoprovide information and analysiswhen we issue our annual statisticsand in the annual letters to individualbodies under jurisdiction.

We also publish information forspecific audiences. For example,in May 2011 we issued our guidefor MSPs and parliamentary staff.It explains our role as the last stagein considering complaints about avast array of public services anddescribes what we can and cannotachieve for complainants.

Making a differenceEmma Gray, Head of Policy and External Communications

Our policy teamis responsiblefor ensuring thatexpansions toour remit take placeseamlessly, withoutdisruption to existingservice users andother stakeholders


While members of the public canbring a complaint to the SPSOdirectly and do not (as is the case inEngland, for example) have to askan elected representative to do it forthem, we know that some peopleask their MSP for support in makinga complaint. When this is the case,it is in everyone’s interest that ourpowers, including their limitations,are understood.

We share the learning from ourconsideration of complaints in otherways as well. For example, it is thebasis of the evidence we providein responses to ParliamentaryCommittee inquiries, ScottishGovernment consultations andthe work of other key stakeholders.We also share learning fromcomplaints with professional andregulatory bodies and likewisethey share information with us.These relationships are outlinedin memoranda of understandingand other protocols, whichalso detail how we shareresponsibilities for complaintshandling.

Improving access

We regularly review thecommunications tools we use tohelp different groups know aboutand access our services. As wellas leaflets about our process, wepublish fact sheets about commonsubjects of complaint, such asplanning, housing allocations andhospital care. From August 2011,when we took on complaints aboutwater and sewerage providers,we were frequently asked aboutcompensation and we decided toissue a new leaflet to explain thelegal position on such claims.

In the course of the year, we alsoproduced material to help raise

awareness of our service amongprisoners. We have visited a numberof prisons since complaints movedto us in October 2010 and haveused innovative means of gatheringfeedback about our materials forprisoners, such as a discussionforum amongst young offenders.There is more about this aspectof our work in the Equality andDiversity chapter of this report.

Given the increasing use of theinternet, we measure the amount oftraffic to our website. In 2011–12,42,947 unique visitors accessed theSPSO website. This marked a 25%rise in unique visitors compared withthe previous year. In 2011–12 wealso recorded an overall increase of20% in visits, compared with theprevious year.

One of the ways people hear aboutthe SPSO is through the media.The vast majority of the coveragewe receive is case-related – in 2011our investigation reports generated234 of the total of 314 mentions ofSPSO. Stories about the healthsector accounted for 51% ofcoverage, with the local authoritysector second highest at 20%.Total coverage rose last year by11% compared with the previousyear, generating almost 40 millionopportunities to see informationabout the SPSO and producing anadvertising value equivalent of nearly£310,000.

Promoting goodadministrative practice

In the Ombudsman’s Commentaryand on our website, we highlightcases where authorities haveresponded well to complaints andtaken action to remedy an injusticebefore a complaint reached us.We aim to support improvement

by focussing public bodies onembedding good complaintsprocedures and on learning fromcomplaints to identify and preventfuture problems. This emphasison prevention is one of thecornerstones of the ChristieCommission report, publishedin June 2011.

Our strategic objectives can alsobe seen in relation to the ScottishNational Performance Framework(NPF), in particular the nationaloutcome of ensuring that publicservices are high quality, continuallyimproving, efficient and responsiveto local people’s needs. Ourobjectives can also be related toother outcomes, including theadditional outcome announced inDecember 2011 relating to olderpeople ‘Our people are able tomaintain their independence as theyget older and are able to accessappropriate support when theyneed it’. There are several NPFindicators to which our work isdirectly relevant – for example,our CSA aims to ‘improve theresponsiveness of public services’and ‘improve people’s perceptionsof the quality of public services’ byensuring that complaints processesare accessible, timely, robust andtransparent.

In health complaints therecommendations that we makefor redress and improvement canbe related to indicators such as‘improve end of life care’, ‘improvethe quality of healthcare experience’and ‘improve support for peoplewith care needs’.

YEARS


Making a difference

Smooth transitions

Our policy team is responsiblefor ensuring that expansions toour remit take place seamlessly,without disruption to existing serviceusers and other stakeholders.In 2011–12, we were asked toconsider widening our jurisdiction toinclude complaints about the police,water and sewerage providers andprison healthcare. As well as addingto our complaints handling caseload(in 2011–12 we received 385prison complaints and 318 watercomplaints) each expansion meansthat we have to expend ourresources on areas including:

> Policy – where appropriate,providing our knowledge andexpertise to the teams draftinglegislation ahead of thechanges, including for thefinancial memoranda toaccompany the bills

> Knowledge management –building our knowledge baseand our complaints reviewers’understanding and expertisein the new areas, including,for example, discussions withthose already handling suchcomplaints, and site visits torelevant facilities

> Professional advice – identifyingsources of technical advice wecan call on when necessary

> Communication – telling peoplewho have complaints with thebody that is to be transferred tous about the changes; informingthe wider public and otherstakeholders; closing oldwebsites and updating our own;adding to our suite of leaflets;managing press interest in thechanges

> Legacy issues – dealing withfinancial, administrative,personnel etc issues that resultfrom the changes

Police complaints

We participated in the ScottishGovernment’s two short life workinggroups that examined scrutiny andcomplaints handling in the contextof the proposals on reformingpolicing services. The first was setup in March 2011 in response tothe Cabinet Secretary for Justice’sproposal to review how complaintsabout the police would be handled.The second group met in October2011 to look at complaints, scrutiny,governance and accountabilityunder the single police force model.

Following the conclusionsof the working groups and theGovernment’s consultation, theCabinet Secretary decided that anew body would handle complaintsabout the police. The Police andFire Reform (Scotland) Bill that wasintroduced in Parliament in January2012 provides for powers for thebody, which will look at bothnon-criminal and criminalcomplaints from 1 April 2013.

Water complaints

When Waterwatch Scotland wasabolished, complaints transferredto us on 15 August 2011. In thepreceding months, we engagedwith key stakeholders including theScottish Government, ScottishWater, the Water IndustryCommission for Scotland andConsumer Focus Scotland(which took on the customerrepresentation function ofWaterwatch). The numbers andtype of complaints that we receivedare detailed in the ScottishGovernment and devolvedadministration chapter.

Prison health complaints

As we outline in more detail in thehealth chapter, we began to takecomplaints about healthcare inprisons in November 2011 whenresponsibility for this transferredfrom the Scottish Prison Service tolocal NHS boards. As we are thefinal stage in complaints about theNHS, unresolved complaintsabout prison healthcare are nowbrought to us rather than toScottish Ministers. We preparedfor the change through detaileddiscussions with the ScottishGovernment and the health boardsinvolved. We also visited a numberof prison health centres to betterunderstand the environment andthe issues that would be comingto us. We had already taken onresponsibility for complaints aboutScottish prisons in October 2010,following the abolition of theScottish Prisons ComplaintsCommission.


Background

As we have already outlined, themost significant addition to our rolein the past two years is the authoritygiven to us to lead the developmentof simplified, standardised complaintshandling procedures (CHPs) acrossthe public sector. The Public ServicesReform (Scotland) Act 2010 alsoprovided us with a duty to monitorand promote best practice incomplaints handling for relevantpublic service delivery staff. Our thirdand fourth strategic objectives aredesigned to take these statutoryfunctions forward through the workof our Complaints StandardsAuthority (CSA).

Purpose, approach and benefits

In line with the recommendations ofthe Sinclair Report, the purpose ofthe CSA is to support continuousimprovement in complaints handlingby guiding all public service providersunder our remit towards a simplified,standardised complaints procedure,which puts the service user at theheart of the process, focuses on earlyresolution, and values complaints astools for feedback, learning andimprovement.

There were a number of approachesthat we could have adopted tobring about simplification andstandardisation. Wales, for example,took a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach,requiring all public service providersto adopt the same complaintsprocedure and policy. We decided toadopt a sector based approach thatwould allow us, in partnership withkey stakeholders, to develop modelCHPs that would be specific to theneeds of each sector, with somecritical elements remaining standardacross all the CHPs. One keyelement is the two-stage process,with an emphasis on early resolution,as recommended in the Sinclair

Report. We saw the significantbenefits of the development of modelCHPs as follows:

> standardisation

> customer focus

> focus on early resolution withempowered, well-trained staff

> improved complaintsperformance

> efficiency (achieved by reducingcosts involved in unnecessarystages and resolving morecomplaints at the point ofservice delivery)

> benchmarking throughstandardised recording andreporting

> increased customer satisfaction

> consistency

Simplifying complaints handlingIn 2011–12, we achieved a numberof significant milestones towards ouraim of introducing a standardised,simplified approach to complaintshandling for all public bodies, buildingon the January 2011 approval bythe Parliament of our Statement ofComplaints Handling Principles, andthe publication in February 2011 ofour Guidance on a model complaintshandling procedure.

We took a phased approach todeveloping model CHPs for eachsector, with local government andregistered social landlords (RSLs)our immediate priorities in 2011–12.From the outset, we adopted apartnership, collaborative approachin developing these which willundoubtedly prove to be of greatvalue as we move towardsimplementation. We communicatedthe various stages of developmentthrough the monthly Ombudsman’sCommentaries, the SPSO websiteand the CSA’s dedicated ValuingComplaints website, and in emailsand letters from the Ombudsman.

Complaints Standards AuthorityPaul McFadden, Head of Complaints Standards

We decided toadopt a sectorbased approachthat would allow us,in partnership withkey stakeholders,to develop modelCHPs that wouldbe specific to theneeds of each sector


Complaints Standards Authority

We published the model CHP forlocal authorities in March 2012 andfor RSLs in April 2012. We alsomade significant progress ondeveloping CHPs in other sectors.

A key part of our strategy was towork with regulatory bodies to buildcompliance and performancemonitoring mechanisms intoexisting structures and processes,avoiding any additional regulatoryburden, and doing this throughself-assessment wherever possible.We also developed support forcomplaints handlers through settingup a network for sharing information,good practice guidance and trainingactivities.

Local authority model CHP

Our approach was to establish aworking group of local authorityrepresentatives, including supportfrom SOLACE (the Society of LocalAuthority Chief Executives) andCOSLA (the Convention of ScottishLocal Authorities). Although theprimary focus of the working groupwas to develop the model CHP,sub-groups of the main workinggroup were also set up to supportthe implementation and monitoringof the CHP and to help furtherimprove other aspects ofcomplaints handling. Thesub-groups considered:

> a model for monitoringcompliance and performance

> a standardised approach torecording and reportingcomplaints data

> a training needs gap analysis tohelp support the implementationof the new model

> a baseline analysis of costsand volumes

> developing a network ofprofessional complaintshandlers for the sector

We worked closely with localauthorities and a range of otherrelevant bodies throughout the yearand this work is detailed in the localgovernment chapter of this report.

RSL model CHP

Our approach in the social housingsector involved working with highlevel stakeholders including theScottish Housing Regulator, theScottish Federation of HousingAssociations, the Chartered Institutefor Housing, the Scottish HousingBest Value Network and tenantsgroups. Representatives of theseorganisations formed our keystakeholder group.

We also issued a survey to RSLstaff, committee members andtenants and coordinated anadvisory panel of RSLs to helpdevelop and provide detailedfeedback on the model CHP.There is more about thisengagement in the housingchapter.

Other sectors

We also engaged with othersectors to provide advice andguidance on developing modelCHPs. We made progress in boththe higher and further educationsectors. Universities Scotlandset up a working group withrepresentatives from severaluniversities and student groups,which met several times duringthe year. Scotland’s Colleges alsoprovided valuable feedback as weworked with the further educationsector to develop their model CHP.We also engaged with the Scottish

Government and will continue towork with them to develop a modelCHP, and we worked on an ad-hocbasis with a number of agenciesand non-departmental publicbodies, providing advice andguidance as they revised theircomplaints procedures.

Providing support andpromoting good practice

A crucial second strand of ourCSA role is to support providers andprovide a centre of good practice incomplaints handling to help improveoverall standards of complaintshandling. This is particularlyimportant as public serviceproviders move to adopt thestreamlined two-stage approach.The Sinclair Report recommendedthe introduction of a network ofprofessional complaints handlers.This was one of a number ofstrands that the CSA progressedthroughout the year supported inpart through improving our ValuingComplaints website and developingthe SPSO’s training unit.

Valuing Complaints website

www.valuingcomplaints.org.ukwas designed as the platform forproviding SPSO best practiceguidance and training resources.The site was re-launched in June2012 and now plays host to ouronline training centre, a discussionforum for complaints handlers, ablog written by the CSA and guestbloggers, and a best practiceresource centre. The online forumprovides a platform for discussionamong public sector complaintshandling professionals to shareexpertise and best practice acrossall sectors.


Training

We recognise that the key togood complaints handling is staffwho are empowered and trained todeal with complaints early androbustly. We set up the SPSOtraining unit in 2009 to supportservice providers in this area. Itcontinues to deliver tailored coursesin frontline complaints handling andinvestigative skills to a wide rangeof organisations. In 2011–12,the training unit completed itsprogramme of delivering 'buddy'courses to all the NHS boards(these courses involve our teamtraining the boards’ staff, whothen cascade the training to theircolleagues).

The SPSO team also trained staff atorganisations including:

> Scottish Ambulance Service

> Scottish Prison Service

> Mental Welfare Commission

> City of Edinburgh Council

> Highland and Islands Enterprise

> Jewel and Esk College

> University of the Westof Scotland

> East Ayrshire Council

> Care Inspectorate

> Scottish EnvironmentProtection Agency

> Scottish Water

> East Lothian Council

> Housing associations

The redesigned Valuing Complaintswebsite incorporates an onlinetraining facility focussed onproviding training for frontline staffon the key skills required for frontlineresolution in line with the newcomplaints handling procedures.Although this training is aimed atsupporting local authority and RSLstaff, much of it is also suitable forstaff in other sectors under ourjurisdiction. We aim to expand thetraining to these other sectorsduring 2012–13 and beyond.

YEARS


Local Government

Local government has consistently been thesector about which we receive most complaintseach year. In 2011–12 we received 1,527complaints about services provided by localauthorities. Although this represents a drop in thenumber of complaints received for the sector, itstill represents 39% of all the complaints wereceived, just under the percentage received inthe previous year. We also received 83 enquiries,42 less than last year. As local governmenttouches the lives of all Scottish citizens in oneway or another, it is not surprising that thisremains the sector about which we receivemost complaints.

The figures in this chapter include complaintsabout the housing functions of councils. There ismore detail about social housing complaints in thededicated housing chapter later in this report.

Areas complained about

There was little change in respect of the areascomplained about, although the numbers ofcomplaints about each dropped compared to lastyear and there was a slight change in the order inwhich they appear on the list. Housing, planningand social work remained at the top of the list.

Top areas of local government complaintsreceived 2011–12

Housing 341

Planning 210

Social work 182

Roads and transport 96

Education 77

Finance 73

Legal and administration 44

Building control 42

Environmental health and cleansing 40

Land and property 30

We also record information about the mainsubjects involved in these complaints, which givesus more detail of the issues complained about.These are shown on the table below. We foundthat planning, housing and council tax consistentlygenerated the highest number of complaints. Wecommented last year about the number ofcomplaints we received about complaints handlingand appeal processes – these dropped slightly thisyear from 4.4% of the total received about localgovernment to 3.9%.

Top subjects of local governmentcomplaints received 2011–12

Policy/administration 293

Handling of planning application(complaints by opponents) 105

Repairs and maintenance ofhousing stock (including dampnessand infestations) 97

Council tax 58

Neighbour disputes andanti-social behaviour 54

Local housing allowance(previously housing benefit)and council tax benefit 48

Children in care/taken into care/childabuse/custody of children 38

Housing applications, allocations,transfers and exchanges 35

Parking 34

Issues in local government complaints

As we highlight in the health section of this report,the Ombudsman is particularly concerned aboutthe unacceptably high level of upheld andpremature complaints that we see. In 2011–12,the level of upheld complaints for all sectors –those that were valid for SPSO and where weupheld all or part of the complaint – went up to39% from 34% in 2010–11.


In the local government sector the level ofupheld complaints rose from 29% to 32%. TheOmbudsman noted that ‘These complaints havebeen looked at in great detail by local authoritiesprior to our involvement, and yet in around a thirdof cases, I am still finding fault’.

During the year we closed 780 complaints aspremature (where the individual has not yetcompleted the service provider’s complaintsprocedure). This meant that the level of prematurecomplaints fell from 55% to 52% in this sector(across all sectors they fell from 45% to 43%).While this reduction is welcome, this is still thesector with the second highest level of complaintsto reach us too early. It remains a matter of concernthat more than half of the complaints about localgovernment reach us before they have completedthe complaints process of the council concerned.In his annual letter, the Ombudsman again urgedcouncils to consider what they can do to reducethe number of premature complaints.

Planning

Each year, without fail, planning ranks as the subjectabout which we receive the second highest numberof complaints about local authorities. We hear frompeople on opposing sides of the planning process –from individuals who have made an application andare unhappy about how the planning authority hashandled it, and from objectors who have concernsabout the effect of planning applications made byothers. In September 2011, the Ombudsmancommented on the number of these complaintsthat we receive. He said:

My approach is pragmatic and where I find thatplanning authorities are acting unfairly I will makerobust recommendations to rectify what has gonewrong and to prevent reoccurrence, and I will drawattention to any failings. As Ombudsman, I do notbelieve that it is enough for planning authorities tosimply toe the line and meet the minimum standardto keep on the right side of the law and regulations.

…Given their enhanced powers, planningauthorities need to provide a level of service that isdemonstrably reasonable, transparent and fair. It isthe responsibility of planning officers to ensure thatthey explain their decisions clearly and fully to thepublic, and I will hold them to account for that.

Statutory repairs

During 2011–12 we received a number ofcomplaints about issues relating to problems withthe City of Edinburgh’s statutory repairs notices.This is a scheme unique to that city, giving thecouncil legal powers to carry out repairs to sharedbuildings and to bill owners for the costs. However,there were significant problems with it, whichbecame the subject of investigations elsewhere.Because of these other investigations, we decided inMay 2011 to suspend consideration of complaintsabout statutory repairs matters. We passed thesecomplaints back to the council to re-examine. Wehave therefore not so far taken up complaints thatare directly about the alleged mishandling of casesunder the scheme.

What happened to the complaints

In 2011–12 we gave decisions on 1,497 localauthority complaints. This included a small numberof cases carried forward from 2010–11.

We published nine full investigation reports aboutlocal authorities. We fully upheld six, partly upheldone and did not uphold two. The reports were abouta range of subjects including traffic regulation, theright to buy a council house, facilities for parking forthose with disabilities and the handling of planningapplications.

We know that people come to us in the hope thatwe can change something that they are unhappyabout. However, we sometimes find that complaints,while understandable, are about issues where wecan do little. This most often happens where theperson is unhappy with a decision that has beentaken, but the authority concerned has actedaccording to the guidelines. The decision beingtaken in such cases is usually one that the authoritywas entitled to take (a discretionary decision), andwe have no power to look at these if nothing hasgone wrong in the taking of the decision.

For example, a man told us that a developer wasoperating unauthorised businesses next to hishome. He thought that the council should takeenforcement action to stop this. We found that thebusinesses were indeed operating without planningconsent. We also found, however, that the councilwere actively working to ensure that the developerapplied retrospectively for the appropriate consents,as they were entitled to do. Government guidancesays that enforcement action should only be takenproportionately and when it is clear that the mattercannot be resolved through negotiation.

YEARS


Local Government

We did not uphold the complaint as we foundthat, in the circumstances of this case, the councilhad acted appropriately. In other cases, we maynot be able to change what has happened, butwe may find that the authority could have donethings better. An example of this is where anotherman was unhappy when a skate park was builtopposite his home. We did not uphold most of hiscomplaints as we found the council had not doneanything wrong, but we did uphold his complaintthat the council had not put planting in place toscreen the skate park as intended. Although thecouncil explained why this had not happened, wewere concerned that there had been no effectivescreening to reduce loss of amenity to localresidents. We therefore recommended that thecouncil take steps to see if they could resolve thisby planting a dense screen compatible withexisting trees and shrubs in the park.

In local government, there are other areas, suchas social work and education, in which we cannotlook directly at the issues involved, but may beable to look at how a complaint about the matterwas handled. In cases where we can look atthe main issues involved and we find that theauthority concerned has not acted appropriately,we make recommendations to address theproblems that have arisen. An example of this,which is in contrast to the previous exampleabout planning enforcement, is where a couplecontacted us because they were unhappy abouta new games area beside their home. Theycomplained about anti-social behaviour and aboutthe amount of light that fell into their garden fromthe floodlights on the site. They said that thecouncil had not enforced a planning condition,which said there should be no light spillagebeyond the boundaries of the site, to thesatisfaction of the planning authority. In this case,we found no evidence that the council had takensatisfactory steps to address these problems.We upheld the couple’s complaints and madeseveral recommendations.

Further examples of our work can be seen in theselected recommendations and case studies atthe end of this chapter, and our reports anddecisions are available on theOur Findings sectionof our website.

Improving complaints procedures

As we outline in the Complaints StandardsAuthority (CSA) chapter, a working group of localauthority representatives developed a modelcomplaints handling procedure (CHP) for thesector in 2011–12. This was an intense periodof engagement with bodies including councils,regulatory bodies, the Society of Local AuthorityChief Executives (SOLACE), the Convention ofScottish Local Authorities (COSLA), the ScottishGovernment, the Association of Directors of SocialWork (ADSW), Consumer Focus Scotland, theCare Inspectorate and Citizens Advice Scotland.As well as arranging meetings, visits andpresentations, the CSA team wrote newslettersand articles to raise awareness of the changesand to invite collaboration and participation. Muchof our August annual council liaison officer meetingwas devoted to the model CHP. Delegates fromcouncils across Scotland heard from a varietyof speakers including a council which hadsuccessfully piloted the two-stage model. Theyalso participated in workshops designed to identifywhat councils needed and how we could supportthem and others in three key areas – complaintshandling training, guidance materials and helpingset up networks of best practice.

In December, we attended SOLACE’s meeting oflocal government chief executives to present anddiscuss the proposed model CHP. In January andFebruary, we received final comments on the finaldraft of the CHP and the associated customer andstaff-facing documents, and these were publishedat the end of March.

We would like to place on record our thanksto all the councils and other organisations whoprovided staff members for the working groupof local authority representatives. Their time,commitment, expertise and sheer hard workwere invaluable in developing the local authoritymodel CHP.


Compliance and performance monitoring

All councils now have a duty to comply with themodel CHP and to submit compliant CHPs, ordetailed plans for implementation. Since publishingthe CHP, we have continued to support councils inthis process, and to provide further details of ourexpectations and advice on implementation.As we outline in the CSA chapter, Audit Scotland willmonitor compliance in conjunction with the SPSOand in line with the principles of the Shared RiskAssessment arrangements. Once implementationhas been fully rolled out, Audit Scotland will alsoreport compliance through the annual audit process.In future years, we expect each local authority tohave appropriate self-assessment arrangements inplace to assure itself that its CHP is operating inaccordance with the model. From 2013/14 local

authorities will also be required to assess and reportcomplaints handling performance around a rangeof high level performance indicators.

Social work complaintsWe responded to the Scottish Government’sconsultation on the Review of Social WorkComplaints, which closed at the end of March 2012.Our response supported the option which wouldsee local authority internal processes streamlinedand aligned with the local authority model CHP andalso the option of providing SPSO with the remitto undertake the external review role currentlyundertaken by complaints review committees.Our response makes it clear that this would requirechanges to the SPSO Act 2002 and additionalresources for the SPSO.

YEARS

That a council:

Planning

> amend guidance notes on their submissionform for formal objection to a planningapplication and representation of support

> take all reasonable action to enforce aplanning condition

> take steps to ensure that an error in publishinginformation about a planning application isinvestigated thoroughly and take action toimprove their process to ensure that this doesnot happen again

> feed back our views to the planning staffwho deal with complaints about neighbournotification

Other

> take measures to ensure that information isprovided to customers when directdeductions are made

> consider regularising permission for a landfillsite and ensure this covers all ancillary activitywith appropriate planning conditions

> remind staff of the importance of adhering tothe relevant timescales when arrangingcomplaints review committee hearingsthrough the statutory social work complaintsprocess

> ensure that their staff act in accordance withthe council's anti-bullying policy in relation tothe use of the appropriate forms for recordingand monitoring

> ensure that the revenues departmentundertake a review of procedures to ensure aclear process is in place and is communicatedeffectively to all stakeholders whenresponding to enquiries or disputes aboutcouncil tax

Complaints handling

> apologise for inaccurate information providedwhen responding to a complaint and takesteps to ensure that accurate informationis provided when responding to complaintsin future

> say by when recommendations made inresponse to a complaint will be implemented

> review staff absence procedures andintroduce measures to ensure that future staffabsences do not unduly impact upon thedelivery of the service standards set out in thecouncil's complaints handling procedure

> review the procedures for investigation ofservice complaints to ensure that staff areinterviewed as part of the process and thatthis is recorded

> ensure that senior staff from a schoolparticipate in refresher sessions on handlingformal complaints

Examples of recommendations made in local government complaints


Local Government

Case studies

Planning; communication; changes to application> Case 201002146

Mrs C's neighbour notified her that he was applying for planning consent for dormerwindows. He assured her that no windows would face her property. Mrs C checked thecouncil's online planning portal and found that that was the case, so she did not object.A council planning officer then suggested changes to the plans, including a window facingMrs C’s house. Mrs C only became aware of this after construction started. Among otherthings, she complained to us that the plans were changed without anyone telling her andthat there was a delay in putting the amended applications on the council website.We upheld Mrs C’s complaints about the changes and the placement of the amendedapplication online. We recommended that the council apologise and offer to meet thecost of Mrs C's neighbour installing obscure double glazing on the window.

Disabled parking: communication; objectivity of report> Case 201000579

Mr and Mrs C applied for a disabled parking space outside their home at the same timeas their neighbour across the road applied for one. The road was not wide enough toaccommodate a space directly in front of each property, so a council committee decidedto put Mr C’s space on the opposite side of the road to his house. Mr C said that hismedical condition meant this was unacceptable, and complained that the informationpresented to the committee was misleading and inaccurate. He was also unhappy withthe process leading up to the decision, and with the council’s complaints investigation.We found that the report presented to the committee included some subjective opinionsas fact, and to an extent misrepresented the situation, and that Mr and Mrs C were notgiven enough notice of the deadline by which they should submit documents to thecommittee. We also found that the council's investigation of the complaint was cloudedby personal opinion and did not concentrate solely on the facts. As, however, the councilhad agreed to refer the matter back to the committee, we made recommendations withthis in mind. These included that, before the applications were reconsidered by thecommittee, the council compile a new report on the options available and set a deadlinein advance for submissions from interested parties.


YEARS

Case studies

Building control: building warrant; fire safety> Case 201003760

Mr C complained that the council did not take action about building warrants issuedfor his neighbour’s property. His and his neighbour’s properties were formerly a singlehouse with a shared stairwell. After Mr C’s neighbour applied for a building warrant torenovate his property, including work in the old stairwell, Mr C complained that the workwas not completed in line with the building warrant or to the required fire and acousticinsulation standard. He felt that the warrant required his neighbour to divide the propertiesby introducing a new ceiling at the level of Mr C’s floor. Because the neighbour did not doso, Mr C was prevented from carrying out work for which he himself had obtained abuilding warrant. We upheld part of Mr C’s complaint. We did not find that the buildingwarrant required his neighbour to divide the properties. We were concerned, however,that the council did not take prompt action to address Mr C’s legitimate concernsabout fire safety. We recommended that the council review their procedures for ensuringthat fire safety risks are resolved in good time and that they consider taking enforcementaction against the property.


Health

Complaints about the NHS have always formedaround a quarter of the cases that come to ouroffice. Like local government, it is an area withwhich most people have contact throughout theirlives. In 2011–12 we received 1,002 complaintsabout the NHS, continuing previous years' trendsof rising complaint numbers. We received 39enquiries, a small rise on the 32 we receivedlast year.

The difference between complaints abouthealthcare and other areas under our jurisdictionis that in health cases we have a specific powerto look into clinical judgment. This means thatwe can look in detail at the decisions made bymedical staff about the treatment and careprovided in places such as pharmacies, surgeries,health centres and hospitals. We makerecommendations, sometimes very detailed,about changes to practice and procedure.We also often recommend that training isprovided or that staff are asked to read andtake account of our findings in order to learnfrom them.

Top areas of health complaintsreceived 2011–12

GP and GP practices 179

Hospitals – general medical 145

Dental and orthodontic services 67

Hospitals – care of the elderly 59

Hospitals – gynaecology& obstetrics (maternity) 42

Hospitals – psychiatry 42

NHS boards (includingspecial health boards and NHS 24) 27

Hospitals – oncology 26

Ambulances 26

Hospitals – general surgical 19

The area about which we consistently receivemost complaints is that of GPs and theirpractices. This year there was a small increase inthe number of such complaints, up from 157 to179. Complaints about care for the elderly, asubject that saw a drop in 2010–11, returned tothe level of 2009 –10. Complaints about hospitalgynaecological and maternity treatment also rose,by around 40%.

We see certain recurring issues in healthcomplaints, which the Ombudsman hashighlighted during the year. Issues includelate diagnosis, poor clinical treatment andnursing care, inadequate communication andrecord-keeping. He has stressed the needfor leadership and ownership of complaintsat all levels in the NHS.

Subjects of complaints

We record statistics of the subjects complainedabout as well as the area of the NHS involved.The next table shows the main issue that the personmaking the complaint asked us to look at, butthere are often other issues involved. For example,the main issue that is brought to us may be aboutthe care and treatment that a patient received inhospital but they may also not have been happywith the way in which staff communicated withthem. We often find that some of the issues aboutwhich people complain could have been avoided ormitigated by better communication with patientsand their relatives at the time.

The issue about which we received mostcomplaints was, as always, clinical treatmentand diagnosis. We received 436 complaints aboutthis – an increase of about seven per cent onlast year’s complaint numbers, although thepercentage of these complaints in comparison toall health complaints received remained virtuallythe same at around 43%. We took in 104complaints about policy and administration, and93 complaints about the ways in which staffinteracted with people while they were in hospital(10% and 9% respectively of the complaintswe received).


Complaints about people being removed from thepractice list of a doctor or dentist dropped slightlyafter having risen sharply last year, albeit on only asmall number of complaints.

Top subjects of health complaintsreceived 2011–12

Clinical treatment/diagnosis 436


Communication, staff attitude,dignity, confidentiality 93

Complaints handling 34

Appointments/admissions 32

GP/dentist lists 16

Admission, dischargeand transfer procedures 13

Nurses/nursing care 10

Record-keeping 7

Continuing care 6

What happened to the complaints?

In 2011–12 we gave decisions on 937 healthcomplaints, including a small number of casescarried forward from 2010–11. As we said in lastyear's annual report, we now work to new criteria forlaying full investigation reports before the Parliament.In 2011–12 we laid 41 public reports (covering42 complaints) about the NHS, slightly more thanin 2010 –11. In June 2011, we also started topublish monthly reports of the decisions thatwe gave by letter.

We investigated a total of 296 complaints. Of the42 complaints that formed public reports, we fullyupheld 22 (52%), partly upheld 18 (43%) and did notuphold two (5%). We discontinued and did notreport on one case that had moved to this stageof our process. The reports were about varioussubjects, including diagnosis and clinical treatment,nursing care, care and treatment of mental healthpatients and care of the elderly. The issues ofrecord-keeping, communication, and complaintshandling also featured.

We issued decision letters about 253 complaintsthat we had looked at in detail. We published reportsof most of these cases on our website. We fully orpartly upheld 125 (50%), did not uphold 118 (46%)and could reach no decision on ten (4%). Wemaderecommendations to the bodies concerned inmany cases. This included some where we didnot uphold the main complaint itself – we will do thiswhere during our investigation we find somethingelse that has gone wrong or could be improved.

All the reports can be read in full on our websitealong with reports of most of the complaintson which we gave a decision by letter. The casestudies and examples at the end of this chapterillustrate some typical cases investigated duringthe year.

Issues in health complaints

Last year, the Ombudsman expressed hisdisappointment at the unacceptably high level ofupheld and premature complaints about all sectors.In 2011–12, the overall level of upheld complaints –those that were ready for us to look at, and wherewe upheld all or part of the complaint – went upfrom 34% in 2010–11 to 39%. In the health sector,it rose from 43% to 56% this year, another worryingtrend. The Ombudsman commented ‘Thesecomplaints have been looked at in great depth byboards prior to my involvement, and yet in morethan half of cases, I am still finding fault’. The level ofpremature complaints in the health sector remainedconstant at 31%, the lowest of all the sectors.

While we recognise that boards often take stepsto improve when problems are identified, we areconcerned about the issues that continue to comebefore us even after we have drawn serious failuresto the attention of the medical community as aresult of previous cases. We highlight two suchissues below.

Dementia

We reported last year about the failings we wereseeing in the clinical aspects of care and in nursingpractice when it came to caring for patients withdementia. It is disappointing that we continue toreport on this and to find significant failings in thecare of some individuals. It is especially disturbing asthose patients are unlikely to be able to speak up forthemselves, and it is usually a member of their familythat expresses concern and brings the complaintto us.

YEARS


Health

One of the case studies at the end of thischapter is a particularly poor example of care.We drew the attention of health boards to thecase, and in particular to a paragraph in our reportthat contains an important, wider messageabout treatment of patients with dementia onacute wards. In the report, we noted that ourindependent advisers (a mental health specialistand a nursing specialist) ‘... expressed concernsregarding the board’s approach to the treatmentof patients with dementia. They considered thatscant regard was given to Mrs A’s mental healthneeds or to treating her as an individual. They alsoconsidered that there was little evidence of acohesive care plan being put in place for Mrs A.Both advisers felt that there was a general lackof understanding of how to manage the type ofbehaviour displayed by some patients on [theward] and that there was no effective strategy inplace to manage those patients’ behaviour.’

We urged boards to reflect on how they canensure that staff on acute wards are equipped todeal not only with pressing clinical needs, but alsoto manage the particular challenges of people intheir care who also have dementia.

Vulnerable individuals

Three of our published reports this year touchedon the lives of particularly vulnerable individuals,all of whom were at risk from self-harm. Wecommented that ‘the failures in each of thesecases, whilst unique in their own circumstances,have had a devastating impact on the individualsconcerned and their families’. We noted anabsence of assessments of the individual and theirrisk of self-harm, as well as the fact that familiesshould be included in the care pathway ofvulnerable individuals. We also acknowledged thatthere are considerable challenges for clinical staffproviding care and treatment to vulnerablepatients, and that it is important that confidentialityis observed for the individual. One of these casesis included as a case study at the end of thischapter.

We remain concerned about the treatment ofthose who lack capacity to make decisions forthemselves. We comment further on this in theEquality and Diversity chapter of this report.

Improving complaints standardsThe NHS’s streamlined, standardised process isthe model for the complaints handling procedures(CHPs) we are developing for the rest of the publicsector. The Patients Rights (Scotland) Act 2011impacts on how people give feedback and makecomplaints to the NHS, and our ComplaintsStandards Authority (CSA) fed directly into thedevelopment of the revised NHS Can I Help You?guidance, published in April 2012, through theScottish Government’s Complaints Review Group.This guidance continues to provide a good modelfor NHS complaints handling, with a strong focuson early resolution. The CSA will monitor bestpractice and complaints performance with a viewto possible revisions to the guidance in futureyears under the SPSO’s powers to publish modelCHPs. Any changes will, of course, be in line withthe terms of the Patient Rights Act and associatedsecondary legislation and would be undertaken infull consultation with the sector.

We also worked with the NHS on awarenessinformation being provided to patients and withNHS Education for Scotland on guidance andtraining for staff. We will continue to workcollaboratively with the NHS and ScottishGovernment to develop e-learning moduleswhich will support the Patient Rights Act and theCharter of Patient Rights and Responsibilities.The learning materials will endorse the importanceof listening to feedback, empowering staff to beproactive in managing concerns and complaintsand to use appropriate tools such asde-escalation techniques and apology.

Feeding back the learningComplaints are an important driver for healthcareimprovement and therefore we continue to shareour findings with many stakeholders throughoutScotland. Our professional advisers deliveredpresentations and seminars to boards aboutcommon themes and issues, lessons learnedfrom complaints and the power of apology.The Ombudsman visited a number of healthcarefacilities this year to help him see at first handthe complexities of modern healthcare and theenvironment that patients, relatives and staffinhabit. We would like to thank boards for theirsupport in such outreach work, which we considera vital part of our role.


During January and February 2012, theOmbudsman met with nursing directors and theChief Nursing Officer, chief executives of severalNHS boards and the chairs of a number of NHSboards. Our nursing adviser, Dorothy Armstrong,attended the meeting of NHS chief executives withthe Ombudsman. The meeting focussed on keythemes from our casework, prison healthcare, ourprofessional advisers, and education and trainingopportunities.

Nationally, we were pleased to be involved inproviding our views and expertise in relation tonational work streams and policy developmentat the Scottish Government. We also responded tothe Parliament’s Health Committee Inquiry into theRegulation of Care for Older People and wereinvolved in the Improving Care for Older People inHospital Stakeholder Group. In particular, we wereable to share the themes identified from complaintsabout older people in hospitals and people livingwith dementia.

We were also pleased to attend several meetingsof the NHS Complaints Personnel AssociationScotland (NCPAS) network. The group providesa wealth of information and experience and is avaluable forum for discussing solutions to issuesand challenges in handling complaints about theNHS in Scotland.

Healthcare in prisonsWe began to take complaints about healthcare inprisons during the year when, in November 2011,responsibility for this transferred from the ScottishPrison Service to local NHS boards. We hadprepared for this though detailed discussions withthe Scottish Government and the health boardsinvolved. We would like to acknowledge the supportfrom healthcare staff of HMP Barlinnie and HMYOIPolmont who facilitated visits to their premises.The visits enabled our staff to appreciate the prisonenvironment and the challenge of providinghealthcare in a custodial context. We received tencomplaints about prison health centres up to March2012, most of which were about clinical treatmentor diagnosis.

YEARS

We recommended that health boards andGP/dental practices take action including:

Care and treatment> apologising to a man for the delay heexperienced when waiting to undergo anoperation for a hernia

> ensuring that a consultant is able to attend aplastic surgery clinic at its scheduled start time

> updating their knowledge of diagnosis andmanagement of persistent upper limbsymptoms

> ensuring that patients are appropriatelymonitored and the outcomes recorded duringthe administration of diuretics (medicationused to remove water from the body)

Communication> reminding consultants of their responsibility topersonally inform patients of their test resultsand likely consequences

> reminding all staff to clarify – at the startof any accompanied consultation – who theaccompanying adult is and that the patientis content for them to participate

> providing a complainant with a writtentranscript of relevant notes

Record-keeping> sharing our decision letter with a consultantand reminding him of his responsibility tomaintain a standard of record-keeping in linewith General Medical Council guidance

> reminding nursing staff in a hospital of theimportance of good record-keeping in relationto the assessment of patients on admission,including risk assessment and obtaininginformation from relatives and/or carers

> ensuring more detailed information is notedin the patient’s clinical records in relation totheir symptoms and the treatment given

Other> drafting a protocol for patient transport

> reviewing the procedure for removing patientsfrom the practice list, to ensure that futureactions are consistent with the obligations inthe NHS Regulations

> reviewing their complaints handling policy toensure that it meets the timescales set out inthe NHS complaints handling procedureand includes guidance on how to offer ameaningful apology

Examples of recommendations made in health complaints


Health

Case studies

Care of the elderly; clinical care; communication;complaints handling> Case 201003976

Mrs A, who had dementia, was in hospital and her daughter and son-in-law raised anumber of concerns about her care and treatment. They said that staff failed to monitor hercondition properly or provide her with effective treatment. They were also concerned aboutstaff communication, record-keeping, a lack of dignity for Mrs A and a failure to providestimulation for her despite her dementia.

After investigation, we upheld all the complaints. We found that there was a failure to provideappropriate care and treatment to Mrs A. She was dehydrated and had suffered a numberof falls on the ward. After one of these falls, Mrs A was not x-rayed as she should have been.We also found that the nursing notes contained inaccurate and inconsistent information, andunprofessional language. Communication between ward teammembers and the family waspoor, and we noted that on occasion Mr and Mrs C were not advised that Mrs A had fallen,nor was the severity of her injuries explained to them.

We found that the handling of the complaint itself was poor and not in line with thestandards set out in the board’s complaints procedure. We made a number ofrecommendations for redress and improvement.

Mental health assessment; communication> Case 201003783

Mr A, who was 20, had attempted suicide. His father, Mr C, complained that Mr A’s careand treatment was inadequate, and that staff did not involve his family in his care. Mr C saidthat over a 13 month period, despite numerous appointments with a nurse and review by apsychiatrist, Mr A made attempts on his own life. Each time he was sent home to his family,with no information or support. After Mr A took a third overdose, he was given informationabout independent providers of mental health care in the community and discharged fromhospital. No other follow-up was arranged. Mr A took his own life two weeks later.

Our medical advisers said that Mr A’s initial care and treatment was satisfactory, but morethorough assessments would have helped identify changes in his later behaviour pattern.There was no written plan for his care and treatment. Although it would have been difficult topredict Mr A’s suicide, his risk of potential self-harm or suicide was never properly assessed.We took the view that these are serious failings, and are against existing national guidelines.It was also clear that Mr A’s family tried hard to be involved in his care, with little success.Our advisers pointed out that the relevant guidance says that involvement of family andcarers is good practice in assessing and managing patients. However, this did not happenin Mr A’s case, nor did the board involve his family in their reviews after his death.


YEARS

Case studies

We were also concerned to discover that the board did not produce all the relevantdocuments until after we issued a draft of our investigation report. The missing documentswere crucial, and related to the reviews that they carried out as a result of Mr A’s suicide.As authorities are required by law to provide us with all relevant information on request,we expressed disappointment that the board did not provide this at the beginning of theinvestigation. We were also concerned about the quality of the reviews. We upheld Mr C’scomplaints and made several recommendations. These included that the board makesignificant reviews of their processes and procedures and apologise to Mr and Mrs Cfor the failings we identified.

Communication; clinical treatment; complaints handling;record-keeping> Case 200904350

Mr C had been losing weight and vomiting, and was admitted to hospital three times in threemonths. During the second admission a consultant found a large tumour which, according tothe medical notes, was inoperable. However, Mr C and his family were not clearly told at thetime that there was a likely diagnosis of cancer or what that might mean for his life expectancy.They only learned of this some three months later, just a few days before Mr C died. His wifecomplained that, because the consultant involved did not tell them about the cancer, Mr Cwas denied the opportunity to make informed choices about his treatment and end of life care.She also raised concerns about the way in which the board handled her complaint.

After consulting one of our medical advisers, we found significant failures by the consultantand the board. These included the failure to tell Mr C or his family about his condition,mismanagement of biopsy samples and failure to reach a definitive diagnosis or to managehis nutrition and weight. We found that in handling the complaint, the board had notcompletely addressed the failings we identified or acknowledged the extent of theconsultant's failures. They also took too long to handle it. We made a number ofrecommendations including that the board review their complaints procedure and howthey use feedback from it. We also said that they should arrange an external peer reviewof the hospital’s biopsy management procedures; of their strategy for implementing Livingand Dying Well (the national action plan for palliative and end of life care in Scotland), andof staff training in end of life care. As well as apologising for the failings identified, we saidthat they should raise them directly with the consultant at his next appraisal to ensurethat he learns from this.


Housing

Overview

This section of the report is about social rentedhousing. Our jurisdiction covers all registered sociallandlords (RSLs), and includes houses both incouncil ownership and those owned by housingassociations. The number of houses in councilownership has reduced as a result of stock transfersto housing associations over a number of years,although not all councils have taken this approach.

There are fewer houses in social ownership moregenerally, as a result of the right to buy scheme,where tenants of social housing could buy theirhome at a discounted price. There wereamendments to the scheme over the years, andin the summer of 2012 the Scottish Governmentbegan a consultation process about proposedchanges to the right to buy legislation. This providesvarious options, including the possibility of scrappingit, which may impact on complaint numbers in future.

Despite the reduction in the numbers of housesavailable, housing was the subject about which wereceived most complaints in the local governmentsector, with the number received almost exactly thesame as last year. They cover a range of issues,from housing repairs and maintenance to neighbourdisputes and anti-social behaviour. Complaintsabout housing associations totalled seven per centof all the complaints SPSO received during the year.

The rate of premature complaints reaching us abouthousing matters is high. Premature complaints arethose that come to us before completing thecomplaints procedure of the body concerned.In 2011–12 the rate for housing stood at 62%,against an average of 43% across all the sectorswe deal with. The premature rate for housingassociations was 67% and for local authorities 58%.Since our office opened ten years ago, housing hasconsistently been the sector about which we receivethe most premature complaints.

Factoring

Residents in tenements and other collectiveresidential properties in Scotland may use propertymanagers, known as factors, to manage commonand shared areas of the property. Some socialhousing providers have extended their role tooffer factoring services to owner-occupiers. Theowner-occupier pays a fee for this as well as theirshare of bills for maintenance or repairs to the

property. Social housing providers do this separatelyfrom their role as landlord, where they managecommon parts of properties in fulfilling a landlord'sobligation to their tenants.

We have not generally been able to take upowner-occupiers' complaints about how a socialhousing provider has acted in the role of propertyfactor. This is because, although an organisationmay be within our jurisdiction, there is usuallya contract between them as factor and theowner-occupier. The law says that we cannot lookat concluded commercial or contractual issues.People who have tried to bring such complaints tous in the past found it very frustrating when we toldthem this, as there was nowhere else they couldturn with their concerns about these matters.

This changed, however, when the Property Factors(Scotland) Act 2011 received royal assent on 7 April2011, and its full provisions came into force from1 October 2012. When the Scottish Governmentwere considering this legislation, we providedinformation from our experience about the barriersthat people faced when they had such complaints.The Act applies to all residential property andland managers whether they are private sectorbusinesses, local authorities or housingassociations. It has three provisions:

> A compulsory register of all property factorsoperating in Scotland

> A code of conduct setting out minimumstandards of practice with which all registeredfactors must comply

> A new route of redress – homeowner housingpanels

People who are unhappy with their factor thereforenow have a route through which they can take theircomplaint. Homeowners will be able to apply to thepanel if they believe their factor has failed to complywith the code of conduct or otherwise failed to carryout their duties. The administrative actions of thepanel, and their complaints handling, may fall withinour jurisdiction, but only in a very limited sense.It is not yet clear if or how these changes will affectcomplaint numbers to SPSO. It is helpful, however,that we can now signpost complainants withconcerns about their factor to a body that can lookat the issue for them.


Complaints and enquiries

We received 33 enquiries and 628 complaints aboutsocial housing in 2011–12. This represents a slightdrop from the 43 enquiries and 638 complaints wereceived the year before, and continued the trend ofreducing numbers in this sector. Of the complaintsreceived, 287 were about housing associations(295 in 2010 –11) and 341 about local authorities(343 in 2010 –11).

For another year the categories most complainedabout remained the same, with repairs andmaintenance at the top of the list again. Complaintsabout neighbour problems and anti-social behaviourwere received in exactly the same numbers as lastyear (stopping the previous downward trend). Thiscategory did, however, move from third to secondplace in terms of the issues most complained about,replacing policy and administration issues, whichdropped by almost 35%. Complaints abouthousing-related benefits rose by 23%, and thoseabout homelessness issues almost doubled, afterhaving dropped last year (although only on relativelysmall numbers of complaints).

Top areas of housing complaintsreceived 2011–12

Repairs and maintenance 171

Neighbour problems andanti-social behaviour 89


Applications, allocations,transfers, exchanges 57

Local housing allowance (previouslyhousing benefit) and council tax benefit(local authorities only) 48

Capital works, renovations, improvements,alterations and modifications 23

Homeless person issues 18


Estate management, open spaceand environment work 13

Rents and tenancy charges 13


We determined a total of 604 complaints acrossthe sector, including some carried forward from theprevious year. During the year we laid one publicinvestigation report about housing before theParliament. This was about poor advice providedwhen tenants wanted to exercise their right to buy acouncil house, and the case is summarised below.We investigated a total of 68 cases during the year,seven more than last year. Of these, we upheld 26(38%) in total or in part. Four of the cases upheldwere about housing associations and 22 aboutlocal authorities. Where we could not take thecomplaint we helped the complainant through theprocess, or signposted them to appropriate placeswhere they could get support.

Of the complaints we upheld, the main areas ofcomplaint were about applications, allocations,transfers and exchanges; neighbour disputes andanti-social behaviour; and repairs and maintenance.

Issues in housing complaints

Repairs and maintenance

We consistently receive most complaints aboutrepairs and maintenance. This is understandableas when there is a problem in the home it needs tobe resolved. However, we often find that thesecomplaints come to us too early, or that they areeasily resolved. When we get in touch with thehousing provider we find that the matter can oftenbe sorted out quickly, to the satisfaction of boththe tenant and the provider.

For example, one man told us that his housingassociation had told him that he would have to paythe cost of an engineer’s call-out as no faults werefound in his heating system. When we contactedthe association, they said that he had not actuallycompleted their complaints process. They wanted tomeet him to try to resolve the matter. We agreed tosuspend his complaint on the understanding that hecould come back to us if he was still unhappy afterthat. The association met him, and managed toresolve the matter without the need for thecomplaint to come back to us. In another case, aman was unhappy that the council had not repaireddamage caused by a leaking roof. We found that theleak had been partly repaired but there was stillwater leaking from a downpipe and the living roomceiling needed to be repaired. When we contactedthe council about this, they immediately arranged fora plasterer to repair the ceiling and for their roofingcontractor to fix the leak. The man was happywith this and withdrew his complaint.

YEARS


Housing

These examples highlight that many complaintscan be resolved by frontline staff of housingproviders acting swiftly to resolve issues. Thisapproach, focussing on early resolution, underliesthe RSL and local authority model complaintshandling processes that we have developedwith the help of those sectors.

Anti-social behaviour and neighbour complaints

These continue to cause misery and contention forpeople in their homes. Last year we drew attentionto the dangers of not managing the situationwell and allowing these to escalate. This year wereceived a number consistent with last year's total,including cases where the matter had still not beenhandled well. In one case we upheld a complaintthat a housing association had failed to takeeffective action to prevent abuse of one of theirtenants – the case is one of those summarisedbelow. We were critical of the association becausealthough it was not possible to say what theoutcome would have been had they acted, it wasclear that they could not take effective actionunder their policy. It is crucial that in handlingsensitive and difficult issues like this, socialhousing providers adopt policies and proceduresthat are fit for purpose and that have the potentialto help those who report problems to them.

Improving complaints handling

Housing was one of the two sectors that ourComplaints Standards Authority (CSA) prioritisedfor developing a model complaints handlingprocedure (CHP) in 2011–12.

Developing the RSL model CHP

We worked closely with a range of housingassociations and representative bodies from thesector throughout the development of the modelCHP with a steering group established to provideassurance and challenge on our approach. Thesteering group included representation from theScottish Housing Regulator, the Chartered Instituteof Housing, the Scottish Federation of HousingAssociations, Scottish Housing Best ValueNetwork, the Tenants Participation AdvisoryService (TPAS) and the Tenants InformationService. We are very grateful to all the bodiesinvolved for their feedback, advice, time, expertiseand hard work.

We also rolled out an intensive programmeof engagement, carrying out visits, meetings,workshops and presentations with a range ofhousing associations and associated bodies. Togain specific input from RSLs, we also distributedsurveys to staff, committee members and tenants.We received a healthy response to the surveysand a number of respondents volunteered to acton an advisory panel on the development of amodel CHP. Given the customer-focussed natureof this initiative, we were keen to gain furtherfeedback from tenants on our proposals andfocus groups with a range of tenants, run by theTPAS, provided some very useful opinions. Theadvisory panel provided detailed feedback onthe model CHP and we issued two drafts of theprocedure for comments across the sectorahead of publication.

Alongside the development of the RSL modelCHP, we were developing the local authoritymodel CHP. By developing them in tandem, weaimed to deliver procedures that align with eachother wherever possible. So, while we have takenaccount of the key differences between localauthorities and housing associations, theexpectation is that customers and tenantsof both will receive similar levels of service.

Compliance and performance monitoring

RSLs are now under a duty to comply with themodel CHP and compliance will be monitoredby the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR), inconjunction with the SPSO, through its monitoringof the Scottish Social Housing Charter (theCharter). The Charter, published in March 2012,sets the standards and outcomes that all sociallandlords must aim to achieve and, following closeworking with the Scottish Government, we werepleased to see the key high level aims of ourCHPs incorporated into the Charter outcomes.We have also worked closely with the SHR toensure that the model CHP is at the heart of theirmonitoring of the Charter outcomes.

RSLs will also be encouraged to use complaintsas a measure in their self assessment exercises infuture. Throughout the development of the CHPwe have been visiting housing associations andattending events and network meetings acrossScotland to provide further details of what weexpect from them and advice on implementation.


YEARS

That a housing provider:

Tenancy issues

> review their procedures to ensure that aproper process is followed when terminatingtenancy agreements and that a distinction ismade between a refusal to transfer tenancyand the formal decision that a tenancy is beingterminated: and that sufficient information isprovided to the tenant

> ensure tenants are advised to contact theprivate rented housing panel at the earliestappropriate point

> apologise because they did not provide atenant with adequate information after arequest to transfer the tenancy was refused

> put steps in place to ensure that they check,approve and, where appropriate, clarify thecharges on invoices before they send them totenants. Any additional information obtainedshould then be passed on to tenants

Anti-social behaviour

> consider introducing a procedure to deal withincidents where an elderly person lives closeto someone who may cause problems thataffect their neighbours, and to address thepotential needs of elderly neighbours

> review their approach to monitoring and actingupon complaints of dog fouling at theirproperties

> take action to improve record-keeping withproper recording of phone notes and ensurestaff receive appropriate guidance abouttimescales for the arrangement and conductof mediation

Complaints handling

> apologise for failures in complaints handlingand improve their processes and procedures

> review the complaints process to considermaking it a requirement that decision lettersgive details of how the investigation wasconducted and the documents that weretaken into consideration in the decision-making

Other

> consider reviewing how they handle caseswhere a claimant is unable to provide writtenevidence of the value of a property that fallsoutside the remit of District Valuer Services

> deduct their administration fee from theamount due for a share of repairs (in view ofthe unreasonable delay in billing the cost ofthe repairs and for an error in calculating theshare of the costs due)

Examples of recommendations made in housing complaints


Housing

Case studies

Right to buy> Case 201003976

Mr and Mrs C wanted to buy their council house, the tenancy of which was in Mrs C'sname. As a long-standing tenant, she was entitled to buy it from the council at a heavilydiscounted rate under the original right to buy provisions. Mr C, however, wanted to applyfor the mortgage. They contacted the council, discussed the options, then asked that thetenancy be assigned to Mr C. The council approved this, knowing that he wanted to do thisso that he could apply for a mortgage to buy the house. When Mr C then applied to buy, thecouncil gave him a price based on the original discount due to Mrs C. Before the sale wentthrough, however, they realised that as a new tenant he could only buy under more recentright to buy provisions, at a far less discounted price. They offered to reimburse the legalfees he had already spent. Mr C then applied to buy the house under the new provisionsbut did not complete the transaction. He complained that the council wrongly advised himabout the impact that transferring the tenancy would have on the discount. We found noclear evidence of what Mr C was told. We took the view that, in these circumstances, thecouncil's failure to provide evidence that Mr C was given advice about the position was aserious omission. We upheld his complaint and made recommendations about the council'sprocedures. In these particular circumstances, we also recommended that the council offerMr and Mrs C the chance to either change to a joint tenancy or to re-assign the tenancy toMrs C. Should Mrs C later apply to purchase the property, either alone or with Mr C, we saidthat the council should apply to Scottish Ministers for consent to sell her the property basedon her original discount entitlement.

Disability adaptations; communication; housing points> Case 201003731

Mr A suffers from a degenerative muscular disease. His sister, Ms C, complained onhis behalf. She explained that Mr A lived alone in a ground floor flat and moved aboutwith the use of a wheeled zimmer. She told us that Mr A was virtually housebound,as the council had not resolved access problems to his home. We noted that the councilhad agreed that the ramp to Mr A’s home was too steep for him to use with his zimmerand that their architect had said that the safest method of access would be to installa step lift. We found that the council offered this after considering all the facts andafter discussion with their professional officers. We did not uphold this complaint,as we found that Mr A had decided not to accept the council’s offer of a step lift,which would have provided him with suitable means of access.


YEARS

Case studies

Although he was not happy with what was offered, we could not criticise the council for nottaking the matter further. We did, however, uphold Ms C's other complaints. We found thatthey had not carried out adaptation work to allow Mr A access to his front and rear gardensand had provided incorrect information about this. They also failed to discuss the remoteentry system with him before installing it, and did not fit an entry system to his front door.All this meant that Mr A was, indeed, virtually housebound. There was also confusion overthe housing points to which Mr A was entitled, which we resolved during our investigation.We recommended that the council apologise for these failings and review the communicationbetween the various departments involved.

Dealing with anti-social behaviour> Case 201004240

Mr C was a former housing association tenant. During his tenancy he was subjected to racialabuse, intimidation and vandalism. He felt he had been particularly targeted because of hisnationality. Because he was afraid for his safety, he abandoned his tenancy and registered ashomeless. He complained that the association failed to follow their anti-social behaviour policy,or to take any effective action to prevent the abuse he had suffered. We found that Mr C hadclearly experienced a serious degree of anti-social behaviour. However, we did not uphold thefirst complaint as we found that the association followed their policies appropriately, includingclassifying Mr C’s case as category A due to the racial nature of the behaviour. On the secondcomplaint we found that, although the association had installed CCTV, no-one was evercaught or identified and without this the association could not enforce the remedies in theirpolicy. However, we also found that they had expected Mr C to gather very detailedinformation himself, which we considered unreasonable. He had provided information on anumber of occasions, but the association said that because he could not identify particularpeople for specific incidents, they could not act on this. We thought this unreasonable, andthat they could have made further enquiries on the basis of the information provided, so weupheld this complaint. We recommended that the association apologise to Mr C for not actingon the information provided.


Scottish Government and devolved administration

Overview

This sector includes all the departments anddirectorates of the devolved Scottish Government.In addition to this, it includes a number ofother Scottish public bodies. These includenon-departmental public bodies, and cross borderauthorities (when they act in a Scottish capacity).Traditionally we do not receive large numbersof complaints about these areas, as they tendto have less direct contact with the public thanorganisations such as local authorities and healthproviders. Over the last two years, however, thenumbers received for this sector have increasedconsiderably, as our jurisdiction has expanded toinclude firstly complaints from prisoners about theScottish Prison Service in October 2010, thencomplaints about water and sewerage providersin August 2011.

There have been other significant changes to theauthorities in this sector, as the Scottish Governmenthave amalgamated bodies or given them furtherresponsibilities. Examples of this are EducationScotland which has taken on the roles of HerMajesty’s Inspectorate of Education and of Learningand Teaching Scotland, and the Care Inspectoratewhich has taken on the roles of the Care Commissionand the Social Work Inspection Agency. We arecommitted to working with these authorities anddevelopingmemoranda of understanding with them.

As we explained last year, we often find thatcomplaints received about the Scottish Governmentor other such public bodies are outwith ourjurisdiction and we cannot take them forward.The SPSO Act outlines our remit in terms of thematters that we can look at. It says that we normallycannot investigate issues related to court or legalcases, or where the individual has an alternative rightof appeal. Each year we receive complaints that wesimply cannot consider; for example; that someonehas (or has not) been prosecuted; that someone hasbeen made bankrupt, or that what happened incourt was perceived as unfair. By outlining therestrictions on our jurisdiction, our leaflets for thepublic explain what we can and cannot do inrespect of such areas. Where possible we includeinformation to help people find the right organisationto which to take the issue.

Complaints received

There was a steep rise in the complaints receivedabout this sector in 2011–12. We received 12

enquiries and 903 complaints, compared to22 enquiries and 519 complaints the previous year.This meant that 23% of all the complaints wereceived in 2011–12 were in the ScottishGovernment sector, compared to only three percent in 2009 –10, before we received the additionalareas of jurisdiction mentioned above. Thecomplaints received included 318 about waterbodies and 385 about prisons. There is moreinformation about both these areas below.

In terms of complaints in this sector that werenot about water and prisons, we received 116complaints about the Scottish Government, 79about Scottish public authorities and five aboutcross border authorities. Complaints about careand health dropped – these are mainly complaintsabout Scottish public authorities that deal withhealth and social care issues. We received 66%fewer cases about financial matters (which tend torelate to complaints about student awards andbankruptcies). The number of cases about courtsadministration (an area where much of the workcarried out is outwith our jurisdiction) fell by 75%to only 5 complaints received.

Top subjects of Scottish Government anddevolved administration complaintsreceived 2011–12

Prisons 385

Water bodies 318

Justice 22

Care and health 21

Education 20

Financial matters 17

Agriculture, environment, fishingand rural affairs 9

Records 8

Arts, culture, heritage, leisure,sport and tourism 7

Ombudsmen/Commissioners 6

Roads and transport 6



During the year we determined 852 complaintsacross this sector. Many of these either reached usprematurely, or were not matters that we could lookat. The overall rate of premature complaints for thissector was 36%, of which a large element relatedto complaints about water bodies.

Of the 194 complaints that were ready for us to lookat, we upheld or partly upheld 46, most of whichwere about issues related to prisons or water.In terms of complaints that were not about theseareas, most of the cases we upheld were aboutfailings in the way that the authority had handled thecomplaint made to them. As we have noted before,this is also prevalent in other areas of jurisdiction.It is important that authorities look at theirprocedures and ensure that staff understand themand are empowered to resolve complaints at thefrontline wherever possible.

Water

Under the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act2010, we took on responsibility for water andsewerage complaints on 15 August 2011. While thisrepresents a relatively low number of complaints(around 8% of our annual total), the transfer wasone of the more complex of the recent extensionsof our jurisdiction, both legally and in terms of thenature of the industry and the requirements ofstakeholder engagement.

Water industry and key stakeholders

The water industry in Scotland is split in two.Scottish Water provide water and sewerage servicesto the domestic market and act as a wholesaleprovider in the market for non-domestic customers.Non-domestic customers have a choice of privatelicensed providers who are registered by the WaterIndustry Commission for Scotland. In terms of thelegislation, Scottish Water became a body underour jurisdiction, and we could deal with complaintsabout them by domestic customers. Private licensedproviders, however, were given the option to opt in.

This was the first time that our legislation allowedfor an opt-in. It was also the first time that we hadpurely private organisations, although dealing withan essential public resource, brought under ourjurisdiction. Three licensed providers chose to opt in.These included Business Stream – a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Scottish Water – who currently have

the largest market share. This is reflected in ourcomplaint figures as Business Stream was the onlyone of the three licensed providers who opted inabout which we received complaints in 2011–2012.Once they have opted in, licensed providers aretreated like any other body under jurisdiction andany of their customers can make complaints to us.This includes some bodies, such as public sectorbodies, who would not normally be able tocomplain to us.

Other public bodies have key roles in this sector.Over the year and in the run-up to the transfer, weworked closely with the key stakeholders. We haveensured we have memoranda of understanding inplace with the Water Industry Commission forScotland, the Drinking Water Quality Regulator andConsumer Focus. These allow for an appropriateflow of information to help them with their importantroles in regulation and customer representation andto help us with our complaints work.

Complaints handling

Water complaints were previously dealt withby Waterwatch Scotland, who transferred 57complaints to us when they closed. A numberof these were received in the last few weeks ofWaterwatch’s work when staff were concentratingon the transfer and we were able to deal with manyof these quickly, as a number were premature andhad not been made to the body in question. Of the57 cases transferred, it was quickly clear thatdetailed work was required on 36 of them. Of these,16 had been open for more than six months at thedate of transfer, with seven older than a year and theoldest dating back to 2008. Only one transferredcase remained open at April 2012 and it wasclosed within the first quarter of 2012–2013.

To provide the best service to complainants, wewanted to build up our knowledge base quicklyand a small team of complaints reviewers receivedtraining on water complaints both before transitionand throughout the year. We are continuing withour training programme and extending this to morecomplaints reviewers. We have also appointedindependent experts with relevant technical andengineering expertise who have been invaluable inassisting us with some of the more complexcomplaints.

YEARS



Complaint numbers

We received a total of 318 complaints aboutwater and sewerage providers. The top areas ofcomplaint were billing and charging, waste waterand water supply. The table below shows the sixsubjects most complained about when peoplecontacted us.

Top subject of complaints receivedabout water 2011–12

Billing and charging 89

Waste water 45

Water supply 42

Customer service 17

Environmental concerns 6

New connections 4

We determined 271 complaints about waterbodies. Of these only 41 were ‘fit for SPSO’ – i.e.ready for us to look at and about a subject that wecould look at. Of these, we upheld or partly upheldeighteen. None of these complaints was thesubject of a public report to the Parliament.

As mentioned earlier, of the 271 complaints wedetermined, 56% were premature as they had notgone through the relevant complaints process.This is despite the fact that the complaintsprocesses are relatively short, and about half ofthe people who contacted us too early hadrecently been in contact with their water provider.As these complaints are new to our jurisdiction, itis possible that there are other factors contributingto this relatively high rate of premature complaints.However, we have asked the water bodies to lookat how they might improve the way in which theyinternally progress and signpost their complaints.We will be looking closely at these figures againnext year.

Subjects of complaint

We received on average two to three complaintsper week that required detailed consideration.We have found that complexity in watercomplaints tends to be around infrastructureand requires an understanding of engineering.However, most complaints we receive have beenstraightforward and we are seeing regular themes.Billing is a major driver for complaints in thenon-domestic sector. There is still a lack ofawareness, particularly amongst small businesses,of the need to inform the water provider when theytake over new premises and to keep an eye onconsumption if at all possible.

Flooding and the damage this can cause leadsto complaints on both sides of the industry andis a particular cause of domestic complaints.Complaints are often about a failure to preventflooding, or about concerns about the responseto a compensation claim made after a flood.Causes of flooding can be complex and it canbe particularly frustrating for complainants if thecause has been the irresponsible behaviour ofneighbours or extreme weather, as no-one isresponsible in such cases, and their only recourseis their own insurance policy.

We have found that claims for compensation aremuch more common in water complaints thanother areas. Our role in handling such complaintsis limited as the water and sewerage legislationgenerally sets out arbitration as the route forresolving such disputes. Where arbitration is notappropriate, the question of legal liability – oftenthe focus of the complaint – would be one for thecourts. However, both of these routes involvecost and risk. If asked to do so, we will considercomplaints that there have been mistakes inprocessing compensation claims. We would notbe able to reassess the claim ourselves. If,however, we found a significant failing and upheldthe complaint this could, in some circumstances,lead to a recommendation that an organisationreassess it themselves. We are very aware ofthe need to clearly explain our role aroundcompensation. A leaflet we designed during2011–12 helps complainants understand that wewill look at claims if they are unhappy but that wecan only do so to a limited extent.


YEARSPrisons

We reported last year on the transfer of thefunctions of the Scottish Prisons ComplaintsCommission to us. 2011–12 was the first full yearin which we received complaints about prisons.These are investigated by a small team of ourcomplaints reviewers who continually update theirknowledge and understanding of prisons and theprison environment. As mentioned in the healthsection of this report, we are also now the finalstage for complaints about healthcare in prisons,although the number of complaints receivedabout this so far has been very small.

During 2011–12, we laid one full investigationreport (case 201002521) about prisons before theParliament. As in the case reported in the previousyear, it related to drug testing in a prison. Weupheld the complaint as we found that procedureswere not properly followed. We also issued anumber of decision letters, most often aboutprogression issues (moving through the prisonsystem, usually to less secure conditions).

The cases received were similar to last year, andalthough we received more of them the subjectmatters about which we received most complaintsmostly remained the same. As we receivedcomplaints about prisons for a full year only in2011–12, our 2012–13 complaints figures will bethe first from which a comparison can be made.

Top subject of complaints receivedabout prisons 2011–12

Security, control and progression 65

Privileges and prisoner property 51

Communication and records 45

Health, welfare and religion 45

Physical and personal environment 25

Work, education, earnings and recreation 23

Leave from prison (including homedetention leave) 22

Admission, transfers and discharge 18

Discipline 18

Supervision levels 2

Although we received 385 complaints fromprisoners, we upheld only twenty in full or in part.In most cases, we find that the matter that hasbeen complained about is something that theprison was entitled to do, or a decision that staffwere entitled to take within the Prison Rules.Unless something has gone wrong in thatprocess, we are unlikely to uphold a complaintabout such matters. An example of this is abouta man who was transferred from one prison toanother. He complained that he was allowed tobuy certain items in the first prison, but was notallowed to do so in the second prison. Prisonshave lists of what they consider acceptable itemsfor prisoners to be allowed to buy. We could onlylook at the way in which staff considered hisrequest, as it is not for us to say what theyshould allow prisoners to buy. When we lookedat the response from the prison, we found thatthey had clearly explained why they did not allowhim to buy the items in the second prison. Wewere satisfied that they had carefully consideredthe request and given the man reasons why itwas not granted.

We also often find that the Scottish PrisonService (SPS) has already taken action tochange practices that have caused a problem,and it is not necessary for us to makerecommendations for further improvement.For example, one man complained that, after adisciplinary hearing, the person who held thehearing did not tell medical staff that the manhad been confined to his cell. We upheld thecomplaint, but made no recommendationsas the prison had already acknowledged thatthe process did not comply with the PrisonRules and had changed it. We commendedthe prison for recognising their error, apologisingto the man and taking action to prevent a similarsituation occurring again by making changes tothe relevant paperwork. We have continuedto find the SPS particularly receptive tosuggestions for improvement and to havetaken positive steps to widen the understandingabout the learning from complaints throughoutthe prison estate.




During the year, we responded to the SPSconsultation on revising the Prison Rules. Thesewere discussed with our Complaints StandardsAuthority (CSA) before the revisions wereimplemented. The revised rules outline astreamlined process with extra tiers of complaintshandling removed and new timescales in linewith SPSO guidance.

The CSA aims to develop and publish a modelcomplaints handling procedure for all ScottishGovernment, Scottish Parliament and associatedbodies, in line with our guidance on a modelcomplaints handling procedure, over the courseof 2012/2013. Work with the water industry onimproving complaints handling will also be takenforward at a future date.

That an authority:

Complaints handling

> review their complaints handling procedureto ensure complainants receive full responsesto complaints

> take steps to ensure that all staff are fully awareof the organisation’s complaints procedure, andthat staff provide information about escalationto the next step and to SPSO appropriately

Other

> consider reviewing the process for accessinga legal laptop (in a prison) to ensure thatmaximum retention timescales are agreed,clearly set out and communicated to the nextprisoner in line

> apologise for failing to explain how a prisonercould access a guidance manual

> remind staff of the documents available forprisoners to access from a prisoner library

> remind line managers that they mustcountersign any completed child welfarereports

> review a claim for loss of property, in linewith the relevant internal guidance circular,and contact the complainant with theoutcome

> ensure they put systems in place to trackthe follow-up of commitments they havechosen to give

Examples of recommendations made in Scottish Government anddevolved administration complaints

Case studiesProviding correct information> Case 201000423

Ms C was unhappy with the Student Awards Agency for Scotland. She complained aboutthe way they handled her request for travel expenses and disagreed with their decision torestrict those expenses. We found that they had assessed her travel expenses in line with theirpolicy. However, we also found that they failed on a number of occasions to correct Ms C’smisunderstanding that she was entitled to full travel expenses under a disabled studentallowance. When Ms C was told that her travel costs would be restricted, she withdrew fromher course. We took the view that because she did not have full information, Ms C could notmake an informed choice about whether to start her university studies. Because of this sheincurred travel costs that she was unable to afford. We recommended that the agencyreimburse Ms C for the further travel costs she incurred as a result of travelling by train touniversity and offset this against any outstanding student debt.


YEARS

Case studies

Advice from an enterprise company> Case 201100887

Mr C complained about the procedures adopted by Scottish Enterprise to investigate hiscomplaints about what happened some time ago, when one of their regional offices was involvedin advising his companies. Mr Cmade serious allegations of conflict of interest against formeremployees of the regional office. Because of the nature of the allegations, a senior officer wasappointed to investigate and met with Mr C. Over a year later, Mr C was provided with a copy ofthe investigator's report. Mr C complained that his written statement to the investigating officerwas not reasonably considered during the investigation, that the final report did not acknowledgehis views, and that the time taken to investigate and to provide a final response wasunreasonable. We did not uphold Mr C’s first complaint as we found no evidence that hisstatement was not reasonably considered. We upheld the other complaints, however, as wefound that Mr C was not given the opportunity to comment on issues of fact before the endof the investigation, and that the length of time taken was unreasonable. We recommended thatScottish Enterprise seek to agree with Mr C the points he believes to be outstanding and toanswer those within three months.

Protected species> Case 201101682

Mr C complained that Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) inappropriately granted funding andlicenses to a moorland development project without requiring a relevant appraisal. The projectaimed to increase the numbers of red grouse, allowing grouse shooting whilst conserving the localpopulation of hen harriers (a protected species). We accepted SNH’s position that the appraisalwas not required for the project as a whole, as the project had no statutory basis. However,certain activities proposed as part of the project required a license to disturb the protected birds.As such, an Appropriate Assessment (formal assessment of the impacts of a plan or project in aprotected or conservation area) was required under the process before the license could beapproved. SNH told us that consideration was given to the impact that the project would haveon the birds before the license was issued. However, they failed to document this in a formalAppropriate Assessment. This was completed after Mr C complained. Although we were satisfiedthat the decision to issue the license was not unreasonable or contrary to regulations or legislation,we did not consider it enough just to consider the potential impact on a protected species. GivenSNH's position as a partner in the project, we took the view that they should have been able todemonstrate that the potential impact was properly considered through completion of theAppropriate Assessment, and we upheld this element of the complaint. Based on the evidencewe saw, however, we were satisfied that SNH had a process of monitoring in place to record theimpact on the hen harriers. We also found that they reached their conclusion that the integrity ofthe protected site would be maintained after they had assessed appropriate factors and withreference to existing scientific research.


Further and higher education

Overview

We received two enquiries and 130 complaintsabout this sector during 2011–12. This was anincrease of 18% on the previous year, continuing atrend of rising numbers of complaints. This year,the main increase was in the number of complaintsreceived about further education.

Further Education

We received a total of 37 complaints during the year,an increase of 54% on last year’s figure of 24. Ofthese, the majority were about admissions, policyand administration, and teaching and supervision.Although complaints about policy and administrationhave been near the top of the list since we startedtaking complaints about this sector, there was anincrease in the number of complaints about bothadmissions and teaching.

Top areas of further education complaintsreceived 2011–12

Admissions 7


Teaching and supervision 4

Academic appeal/exam results /degree classification 2


Grants/allowances/bursaries 2


We determined a total of 35 complaints during2011–12. Of these,14 (40%) were receivedprematurely (i.e. they had not completed thecomplaints process of the institution concerned).We fully upheld one complaint, about theinformation provided by a college in relation tochanges to a course. The case is summarisedat the end of this chapter.

We found that many of the complaints wereceived were about subjects that we could notlook at, such as where someone complainedabout a college's decision not to award a bursary,or where someone was unhappy with the feesthey had paid.

Higher Education

We received two enquiries and 93 complaintsabout higher education. The number of complaintsabout academic appeals, exam results and degreeclassifications dropped from 28 last year to 22 thisyear. This was encouraging, as we cannot havea mark or assessment changed, a message wealways aim to convey clearly in our leaflets, on ourwebsite and in direct communication with studentswho contact us. This should mean that those withconcerns about their academic achievements arenot disappointed by expecting us to be able to dothis. What we can look at is the process that wasfollowed when the mark was appealed, and see ifthat was correctly followed.

Although not a significant rise in terms of numbers,it is interesting to note that we received threecomplaints about special needs during the year,compared to only one the previous year.

Top areas of higher education complaintsreceived 2011–12


Academic appeal/exam results/degree classification 22

Teaching and supervision 11


Special needs assessmentand provision 3

Admissions 2

Personnel matters 2

Plagiarism and intellectual property 2



We determined a total of 80 complaints about highereducation. Of these, 24 were received prematurely(i.e. they had not completed the complaints processof the institution concerned). We upheld or partlyupheld seven complaints during the year. Theserelated mainly to issues around appeals processesand policy and administration, including the handlingof complaints.


We worked throughout the year with stakeholdersfrom the further and higher education sectors,including Scotland’s Colleges, Universities Scotlandand representatives from a number of colleges and

universities, to develop a model complaintshandling procedure (CHP) for each sector.We will be discussing training and awarenessneeds with the aim of developing sector specifice-learning modules on frontline complaints handling.We will publish a model CHP for each sector afterwe receive comment and feedback from theserepresentatives, with the aim of publishing themduring 2012.

We also met with other education bodies in2011–12 to discuss their own complaintsprocedures and support them in ensuringcompliance with our guidance. These includedEducation Scotland and the ScottishQualifications Authority.

YEARS

That a learning institution:

> apologise for not telling a student that they had a right to appeal

> provide a student with a full apology for initially failing to follow the examination procedure correctly

> remind staff of the importance of following their stated complaints procedure

> in the event that a student wishes to appeal the decision made about stage 2 complaints to theuniversity, consider the appeal in terms of stage 3 of the university's complaints procedure

Examples of recommendations made in further and higher education complaints


Further and higher education

Case studies

Communication about a course; complaints handling> Case 201100862

Ms C enrolled on a professional development course at a college. She complained thatthe college did not reasonably tell her about changes in course provision, as a result ofwhich she felt that she was due a refund of some of the fees. She also complained that thecollege did not tell her when the tutor’s contact details changed, and did not respond tocorrespondence about her complaint. We upheld this complaint, as we found from lookingat the evidence that the college did not reasonably inform Ms C about the changes incourse provision or the tutor's details. They had acknowledged that they took longer thanallowed in their complaints procedure to deal with part of the complaint, and did notrespond to a letter. We also found that the college’s responses to Ms C’s complaints abouther course fees were not consistent. We recommended that they apologise to Ms C forall the failings identified, and improve their communication and complaints handlingprocedures.

Appeal handling procedures> Case 201000292

A university awarded Mr C a degree, but he did not get the classification to which hethought he was entitled. He complained that the university failed to follow their procedure forclassification of his degree or their appeals process; took too long to handle his academicappeal; and did not answer questions about how the marking scheme was applied.We cannot consider issues about academic judgment, so we could not comment onwhether the degree was awarded at the correct level. We can, however, look at whether ornot the university followed the proper procedure. Having considered the evidence, we weresatisfied that the university properly followed the degree classification procedure and hadalready taken appropriate steps to improve their explanations to students. We therefore didnot uphold this part of the complaint, nor that about the marking scheme. We did, however,uphold Mr C’s complaint that the university did not follow the proper procedure whenhandling his academic appeal. They decided that Mr C’s original appeal was not competent,and handled this appropriately. However, when they then invited Mr C to submit anotherappeal, there was considerable delay in dealing with it, and they did not keep him informedabout this at the time. It took the university four months to deal with the appeal, which waswell over the timescale suggested in the guidance notes. We recommended that theuniversity apologise to Mr C for this.


Equality and Diversity

We are committed to ensuring that allpeople in Scotland have an equalopportunity to access our services,and we recognise our duties underthe Equality Act 2010 to promoteequality of opportunity for all.We also recognise the changinglandscape of Scotland’s communitiesand the diverse communicationneeds that exist, as well as the rangeof needs that our disabled customersmay have.

The provisions of the Equality Actalso support our core values:

> we respect others, regardlessof personal differences

> we listen to people tounderstand their needs and tailorour service accordingly

> we promote equal access to ourservice for all members of the public

As well as taking responsibility forour own activities, we have a role inensuring that bodies under ourjurisdiction also fulfil their obligations.Our Strategic Plan for 2012–16contains five equalities commitments:

> to take proactive steps to identifyand reduce potential barriers toensure that our service isaccessible to all

> to identify common equalityissues (explicit and implicit) withincomplaints brought to our officeand feed back learning fromsuch complaints to allstakeholders

> to ensure that we inform peoplewho are taking forward acomplaint of their rights and ofany available support, and thatwe encourage public authoritiesto do the same

> to ensure that we play our part inensuring that service providersunderstand their duties topromote equality within theircomplaints handling procedures

> to monitor the diversity of ourworkforce and supply chain andtake positive steps whereunder-representation exists

We published these after consultingwith stakeholders, includingauthorities under our jurisdiction andthose working with and advocatingon behalf of people with disabilities.

As an organisation we continuallystrive to ensure our practice andprocesses reflect our obligations.We have undertaken a number oftraining initiatives and we are addinga section on accessibility to ourcomplaints handling guidance. Thisdemonstrates our commitment toensuring that our staff are aware oftheir obligations and that we put inplace reasonable adjustments tomake our service accessible to allpotential users.

Accessibility

When we accept a complaint we askif the person making it has any needsthat we can make adjustments toaccommodate. We always try tomake reasonable adjustmentsand some we have made includeproviding letters in large print,sending written confirmationof what was said in a telephoneconversation and providing atelephone interpretation service.

We also try to ensure maximumaccessibility on our website.During 2012–13 we are carryingout an accessibility review with ourwebsite provider, to try to maximisethe ease of using our site. Currently,the site has:

> Crystal Mark status

> audio and large font versionsof our most used leaflets

> a 'browsealoud' facility, allowingthe website to 'talk' to the userand allowing the user to highlightinformation on-screen

Other action we have taken to makeour services accessible are:

> we have a Freephone telephonenumber, allowing members of thepublic to call us about theircomplaint at no cost

> the Plain English Campaign havechecked and approved many ofour public leaflets

> we have an ‘easy read’ version ofour main complaints leaflet

> we use translation services toprovide written information forthose for whom English is not afirst language

> we use translation services duringtelephone conversations orinterview when required

> our complaints process includeschecks to ensure that our staffconsider and identify anyaccessibility requirements at anearly stage of handling thecomplaint

> we continue to use equalityimpact assessments to test ourpolicies and procedures. We havewritten the use of these into ourprocedures to ensure that they areused to check any changes to ourprocess

> we have refreshed our monitoringto ensure we are capturing dataon the seven protectedcharacteristics under the newequalities legislation, for bothcomplainants and employees

> we have amended our systems tobe able to better capture data onhow we adapt our service forpeople with special needs and onthose complaints that have anequalities aspect



Managing equality anddiversity at SPSO

Our internal equalities and diversitygroup continued to monitor ouractivities to ensure that we complywith our legal requirements underthe new equalities duties. Tocontinue to improve our service tothe public, we trained staff in theresponsibilities and rights providedby the Equality Act, and on diversityissues. We also trained relevant staffin how to conduct equality impactassessments. This was doneto follow best practice, as the lawdoes not require this in Scotland.

We worked closely with an equalityand diversity specialist on variousissues during the year, including theabove training, and have sinceappointed her as our equalities anddiversity adviser. From 2012–13,she will provide advice oncomplaints that contain an equalitieselement and on whether SPSOpolicies and practice comply withequalities legislation. She will also beworking directly with our ComplaintsStandards Authority team to ensurethat model complaints handlingprocedures and the material on ourValuing Complaints website provideguidance to bodies on how to meettheir equalities obligations whenhandling complaints.

Monitoring and profiling

We monitor data about our serviceusers. We ask people who come tous with a complaint to completeour monitoring forms, which arehandled separately from ourcomplaints forms. Filling out theform is voluntary, and this year atotal of 807 people (almost 21%of those who complained to us)returned them. This is a slight dropin the percentage of monitoring

forms against complaints received,but as we pointed out last year,many people do not ask for or sendus a form at all, especially thosewho write us a letter about theircomplaint.

Of those who responded, wefound that:

> 42% were female and 53% male,with 5% not telling us theirgender

> 65% fell into the age groups35–49 (34%) and 50–64 (31%)

> only 3% of respondents said thatthey were under 24

> around 30% said that they had adisability of some kind (11% didnot want to say)

Of the disabilities identified, mostrelated to problems with physicalmobility, impaired hearing or poorsight/blindness; others identifiedthemselves as having multipledisabilities.

We also gather statistics on theprofiles of our staff and of thosewho apply for jobs with us.We publish these as part ofour publication scheme.

Adults with Incapacity

We are aware that individualswho lack the capacity to act forthemselves are particularlyvulnerable. As mentioned in theparagraphs about dementia in thehealth section of this report, suchpeople are not in a position toquestion their treatment. One ofthe case studies that follows isabout an elderly woman whosesenses were impaired by hearingloss. The health board concerneddid not assess her capacity to actfor herself, and her niece initiallycomplained to us because shethought that her aunt was not being

properly treated with the drugsused. This is an example of a casewhere we did not uphold the maincomplaint brought to us (becausewe found that the doctorsprescribed appropriately in thecircumstances) but where ourinvestigation raised other concernsthat we needed to address. In thiscase we were very concernedabout the board’s failure toimplement the provisions of theAdults with Incapacity (Scotland)Act 2000. We commented on failureto comply with this Act in last year’sannual report and said that serviceproviders should ensure that staffunderstand what they are requiredto do under this legislation. It is withconcern, therefore, that we reportthat similar cases still come to ourattention. For the protection of bothpatients and staff, it remains vitalthat authorities across Scotlandproperly understand and implementthis legislation.

Prisons

We want to ensure that our serviceis accessible and easy to use for allwho contact us. A review of aScottish Government study in 2011found that one in three people inScottish prisons do not have‘functional literacy’. We committedto addressing this at a very earlystage in our handling of prisoncomplaints to ensure that theScottish prison population couldaccess our services, including thosewho have limited reading andwriting ability. SPSO staff engagedwith prisoners and staff through aseries of visits, to learn from themabout the particular issues facedby those in a prison environment.During these visits, we took theopportunity to explain what we doand how to access our services.


As a consequence of this, wemade a number of changes to ourcommunication materials, includingproducing leaflets and posters inaccessible formats, using large font,increased white space and plainEnglish. As for all service users, weoffer a Freephone advice helpline,and provide communicationsmaterials in audio, Braille,easy-to-read and translated

alternatives. We have also recordeda presentation aimed at youngoffenders. The prison play this ontheir TV loop so that prisoners canlearn about complaints and theirrights. The key aims are to dispelsome of the complexities andanxieties around complaining in aprison setting and to try to giveinformation in the best possible way.

YEARS

Case studies

Capacity to consent to treatment; assessment of patient on admission> Case 201002867

An elderly woman, Miss A, was admitted to hospital. She had significant hearing impairment,and while in hospital was without her hearing aids for a number of days. She presented somechallenging behaviours after admission and was prescribed an antipsychotic drug. Miss A’sniece, Mrs C, complained that the board wrongly prescribed this to her aunt. After taking advicefrom our medical adviser, we found that it was reasonable for the board to prescribe the drug toMiss A on medical grounds. In reaching that decision, however, we noted that the board did notmeet Miss A’s needs as a patient with sensory impairment and that this impacted on herbehaviour. Having read Miss A’s medical notes, our medical adviser said he thought it likely thatshe in fact lacked capacity to provide informed consent to treatment, or to participate indecision-making. The board, however, failed to assess this. Had they done so and found, as theevidence suggested, that Miss A lacked capacity to consent to treatment, then they should havecompleted a certificate of incapacity and consulted Mrs C about treatment. We, therefore,expressed serious concerns about the board’s lack of action in relation to the Adults withIncapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. Wemade a number of recommendations, including that theycarry out an audit of their practice on implementing the Act, with particular reference to consent,and report their findings to us; amend their guidance on managing patients with delirium toinclude the requirements of the Act; and that they share the report with staff to ensure theyunderstand the issues arising from this case.



Case studies

Disabled parking; decision-making> Case 201001398

Ms C lives in the centre of a city in a controlled parking zone. As her son has a disability,Ms C has a ‘blue badge’ for her car. This provides parking concessions for people withdisabilities, but does not allow parking in some restricted areas. After getting a parking ticketin a restricted area near her home, Ms C asked the council to provide a disabled parking bayby her house so that her son could easily get to the car. The council, however, said that theyhad decided not to provide any more disabled bays inside the parking zone, although theywere continuing to do so outside it. Ms C complained that the council had not fulfilled theirstatutory duties about parking provision for disabled residents, under Section 5(2) of theDisabled Persons’ Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009. This says that where a qualifyingperson asks for a designated parking space, the council must decide whether they canidentify a place in the street from where the person can conveniently access their house.If it is not possible to do so, then they must tell the person why. The evidence suggested thatblue badge holders in the parking zone may be disadvantaged compared to those livingoutside it. The council have the right to make policy decisions. However, making a blanketdecision that they will provide no further disabled bays in a particular area stops them fromdeciding this on a case by case basis as they should. We recommended that the councilreview their policy, to take into account the individual circumstances of residents in theparking zone. We also recommended that they reconsider Ms C’s request for a disabledparking bay outside her property.


Governance & AccountabilityJohn Vine, Chair of the SPSOAudit & Advisory Committee

The Ombudsman, as accountableofficer for the SPSO, is responsiblefor ensuring that his resources areused economically, efficiently andeffectively. The SPSO is subject toexternal audit, currently providedby Audit Scotland, and internalaudit, under a shared servicesarrangement with the ScottishLegal Aid Board. The Ombudsmangives evidence annually to theParliament’s Local Government andRegeneration Committee followingthe publication of his annual report.He also holds regular discussionswith the Scottish ParliamentaryCorporate Body (SPCB) about theSPSO annual budget submissionand other governance issues thatmight arise.

The Audit and Advisory Committeewas established in June 2007 byProfessor Alice Brown, who wasOmbudsman until she demittedoffice in March 2009. Our remit is towork with the Ombudsman as anon-executive group, advising onthe discharge of the functions of theaccountable officer and ensuringhigh standards of governance andaccountability, in accordance withBest Value principles.

The committee’s purpose andduties are set out in the SPSOscheme of control. We supportthe Ombudsman (as accountableofficer) and the senior managementteam by monitoring the adequacy ofthe SPSO’s governance and controlsystems and offering objectiveadvice on issues concerning therisk, control and governance of theSPSO. The committee also providea source of advice and feedback onSPSO strategic objectives andannual business plans as well ascommenting upon the

recommendations of internaland external audit.

I was delighted to accept theposition as chair of the committee,taking over from Sir Neil McIntosh.who stood down last year. I am theIndependent Chief Inspector ofBorders and Immigration and I amvery pleased to be joined on thecommittee by Tom Frawley, theNorthern Ireland Ombudsman,and Anne Seex who is LocalGovernment Ombudsman forEngland. I am grateful to Tomand Anne for the quality of theircontribution. I would also liketo acknowledge the energy,commitment and wisdom thatthe previous chair and committeemembers brought to the role,assisting the SPSO in movingforward.

The committee met four times in2011–12. Representatives fromthe SPSO’s external and internalauditors attend our meetings.They can advise us in private whenrequired, before we discuss with theOmbudsman the key operationalpriorities and risks.

There were a number of key areasof focus for the committee in2011–12 including a review of theSPSO's case handling process,and changes to the organisationalstructure to prepare the SPSO toaccept additional responsibilities.

The past year has been onewhere the committee has carefullyexamined the operational andfinancial management of the SPSOwith a focus on service deliveryand value for money to the public.We have benefited from theconstructive engagement of ourexternal auditors and the input and

contribution from the internal auditservice. In his role as OmbudsmanJim Martin has been open andconstructive with all our requestsand has provided considerableenergy to and sound leadershipof the organisation. Coupled withthe commitment of his seniormanagement team and other staff,there has been measurableprogress in casework performance,governance and full integration ofnew responsibilities for prison,prison health and water complaintsas well as the new statutory remit tostandardise and improve complaintshandling across the public sector.

The significant programme ofchange being pursued by theScottish Parliament will bringincreased demands on the SPSOin the coming year. I am confidentfrom what I have seen in my roleas chair of the committee that theorganisation is well placed to meetthose challenges. My colleaguesand I will continue to provide theindependent scrutiny necessary toprovide public confidence in theservice being delivered and tohelp the Ombudsman achievehis objectives.


Independent Service Delivery Review

Service delivery complaintsto the SPSO

In 2011–12 we handled 4,534complaints and enquiries. Of thesewe received 32 formal servicedelivery complaints. Nine were fullyor partly upheld, 19 were not upheldand four were discontinued orwithdrawn. 13 of these complaintswere decided by the IndependentReviewer.

The role of the IndependentReviewer

The Independent Reviewer’s role ispurely to look at complaints aboutservice delivery by the SPSO.The Reviewer has no powers toreview the Ombudsman’s decisions.These can only be challenged byjudicial review. The role of theReviewer was introduced at theSPSO’s initiative, and is not astatutory requirement. It is part ofour commitment to service delivery,allowing us to provide theParliament with further assuranceabout our accountability.

The Reviewer can require evidenceand explanations from the SPSO.They report their findings directly tous. We can comment on factualaccuracy, or provide the Reviewerwith material new evidence, but wecannot influence or change thefindings and recommendations.

It is difficult to identify systemicissues on the basis on such smallnumbers, but we have in placemechanisms to ensure that thelessons from service deliverycomplaints are fed back internally.This takes place through formalreporting to the Audit and AdvisoryCommittee and action planning atsenior management team level.

The Reviewer’s role is a three-yearcontract, and during this year the

contract changed hands. For thefirst seven months, the work wasdone by an individual who carriedout a similar role across a number oforganisations. From mid-Novemberthe contract moved to a personwho has held the position ofombudsman in anotherorganisation. The two Reviewers'reports below are their account ofthe cases they handled in 2011–12.

Reviewer’s ReportApril 2011– November 2011

Ros Gardner

This is my final report asIndependent Reviewer of the SPSO.After three years in the role I amretiring and this report coversthe period from April 2011 toNovember 2011, when my contractended. As always, this has been abusy and interesting year for theSPSO and for me as the Reviewer.I have worked closely with theOmbudsman and his seniormanagement team and as alwayshave received enormous supportand help from them in investigatingthe complaints brought to me.

Statistics and matterscomplained about

Between April 2011 and November2011 the SPSO referred ninecomplaints to me. Of thesecomplaints, one was withdrawn bythe complainant, I did not upholdfive and I partly upheld three.Matters complained aboutrelated to:

> delays in the handling of thecomplaint and the response tothe request for a review

> dissatisfaction with the handlingof the complaint by theOmbudsman

> lack of clarity in the reasons givenfor the Ombudsman's decisionnot to progress a review

> SPSO’s service standards notbeing adhered to

> dissatisfaction with the handlingof the service delivery complaint

Key themes

The key themes that arose in thisperiod were:

Delays in processing complaintsThere were claims of delay atvarious stages in the process.Often, there are operational reasonsfor a complaint taking longer toprocess, investigate and respond tothan anticipated. In these cases, theissue was that complainants werenot adequately informed about thedelays.

Lack of fairness and impartialityin the handling of complaintsAllegations of this kind tend to occurwhen the complainant remainsdissatisfied with the outcome of theSPSO’s investigation. I found noevidence in any of my investigationsof any lack of impartiality by anymember of SPSO staff.

Lack of clarity in the reasonsgiven by the Ombudsmanfor his decisionThese complaints usually arisefollowing the Ombudsman’sdecision not to review a complainton which he has reached adecision. The Ombudsman’s criteriafor review are clearly stated in theSPSO’s published procedures,namely that to be eligible for areview the complainant mustprovide evidence that:

> is new to the investigation and/or

> has been overlooked ormisrepresented in the originalinvestigation


It would appear that whencomplainants were informed thattheir complaint has been referred tothe Ombudsman himself for review,they remained unaware of the keycriteria that he would use to reachhis decision. This also applied tocomplaints where the complainantwas dissatisfied with the decisionnot to review the complaint.

Another issue that arose was anallegation that the SPSO’s publishedservice standards had not beenadhered to. I did not uphold thiscomplaint.

Recommendations

Among the recommendations that Imade in this period were that:

> where there is potentialdiscrepancy between thecomplainant’s requirements andthose identified by the SPSO,the SPSO should seek to provideclarification

> a summary of each element of acomplaint to be included in areview should be provided andagreed between the complainantand the SPSO

> when the SPSO makesrecommendations, either formalor informal, they should makeclear to the complainant whetherthe recommendations will beimplemented in relation to thespecific complaint, or whetherthey are of a more generalnature. The SPSO should alwaystell the complainant about policychanges that arise from a reviewof a complaint or a group ofcomplaints, as this is a verypositive reputation-enhancingaction for the organisation

SPSO responses

In accordance with their establishedprocedures, the SPSO seniormanagement team responded to

my recommendations with aproposed action plan. In almostall cases, the SPSO agreed toimplement the recommendations.Where, for operational reasons, thiswas not possible, the SPSO agreedto investigate the possibility offurther action.

Conclusion

I have thoroughly enjoyed my timeworking with the SPSO seniormanagement team and have valuedthe relationship that we built upduring the time that I was involved.I believe that establishing anIndependent Service DeliveryReview mechanism has enhancedthe work and the reputation of theOmbudsman's office and hasprovided a transparency in thereview of complaints handling thatis essential at this level. I wish theorganisation and the personnelinvolved, together with mysuccessor, every success inthe future.

Reviewer’s ReportNovember 2011– March 2012

David Thomas

This is my first report asIndependent Service DeliveryReviewer. I dealt with four servicecomplaints in the relevant period.That is a very small numbercompared to the number of casesdealt with by SPSO, so it is tooearly for me to draw any generalconclusions to add to those of mydistinguished predecessor.

Some complainants whosecomplaint is not upheld by theOmbudsman find it difficult todistinguish between their view ofthe merits of their complaint againstthe public body (which is not amatter for me) and their view of the

way in which the case was handled(which can be for me).

Before reaching a decision on aservice complaint, I carefully reviewthe whole of the case file – so as tobe able to judge, in context, theway in which the matter has beenhandled. The Ombudsman and hisstaff have consistently provided mewith all the information I required.

All four of the service complaintsthat I handled arose from caseswhere the Ombudsman had notupheld the complaint against thepublic body. In one, I found nothingat all wrong with the way in whichthe case had been handled. In theother three, I did not agree with allthe complainants said, but I did findhandling errors.

In one, SPSO had not given thecomplainant sufficient notice of thelimited right to ask for a review.In another, SPSO had not explainedclearly and early enough that theOmbudsman could review theprocess by which a local authorityreached a particular decision, butcould not act as an ‘appeal’ bodyagainst that decision. In the third,an SPSO complaints reviewerhad accidentally failed to follow aprocedure agreed by another SPSOcomplaints reviewer about the wayin which a single complaint broughtby a group of complainants wouldbe handled.

Where I upheld service complaints,SPSO reacted positively to myrecommendations – accepting myconclusions and apologising to thecomplainants concerned. As moreservice complaints come through tome, I may be better able to judgehow far any problems arise fromindividual human errors or whetherthere are any systemic issues theOmbudsman needs to consider.I will share my views with the Auditand Advisory Committee.

YEARS


Financial performance

The SPSOmakes an annualbudget application to the ScottishParliamentary Corporate Body(SPCB). This is considered by 1stMarch each year (as part of theSPCB’s expenditure plan) by theParliament’s Finance Committeeand the Scottish Government. TheSPCB’s final expenditure proposals(including the SPSO’s budget) thenappear in the annual Budget Billwhich is voted upon by theParliament.

In 2011–12 we operated on anapproved budget of £3.34 millionwith a total of 45 staff (full timeequivalent). This equated to 79%of our total net expenditure beingspent on staff costs, with threequarters of staff being directlyinvolved in case handling. The tablebelow details the major costs in ourstatutory accounts over the pastthree years.

Under provisions in the PublicServices Reform (Scotland) Act2010, we, along with all the otherbodies supported by the SPCB, arenow subject to greater direction fromthe SPCB over some aspects of ourcorporate services. We are keen tocontinue to work with the SPCB toadvance the shared servicesagenda. We have already achievedsignificant savings by sharing officespace with, and providing corporateservices to, other offices that theSPCB support.

It is likely that we will create or bepresented with other possibilities forsavings over the next four years,and this will impact on our work,for example in changing where andhow we carry out some of ouractivities. In all matters relating tochanges to our remit and powersand in how we carry out our work,

we will continue to maintain andprotect the independence (andperception of independence) of theSPSO – this is a fundamental pillarof all ombudsmen’s offices.

Budget

Over the three year period between2010–11 and 2013–14 the SPSOis committed to achieving as aminimum a 15% real termsdecrease in its budget. The2011–12 budget represented a6.5% saving on the 2010 –11baseline budget, largely achievedthrough a restructuring of theorganisation. The budgetrequirement for the year 2012–13,as stated in cash terms, is £3.29million, a 7% decrease on therefreshed 2011–12 baseline budget.The indicative figures for 2013 –14,which we provided to the SPCBas part of the 2012–13 budgetprocess, show a further plannedreduction of 2.6%. These savingshave been achieved whileintegrating new areas of jurisdiction,taking on additional duties leadingto the development of new services,and improving productivity in casehandling.

The Public Services Reform Actalso requires bodies, including theSPSO, to provide information oncertain expenditure. This informationis available, along with our fullaudited accounts, on the SPSOwebsite.


YEARS

Summary analysis of expenditure 2012 2011 2010£000s £000s £000s

Staffing costs 2,660 2,385 2,610

Other operating costs

Property* 292 301 296

Professional** 166 94 149

Office running costs***† 324 310 248

Total operating expenditure 3,442 3,090 3,303

Capital 128 48 2

Other income (93) (90) (15)

Net expenditure 3,477 3,048 3,290

Staff FTE 45 46 47

* Including rent, rates, utilities, cleaning and maintenance** Including professional adviser fees*** Including ICT, Annual Report and publications† Office costs for earlier years adjusted to exclude notional cost of capital which is no longer charged.

Full audited accounts are available on the SPSOwebsite www.spso.org.uk.


Strategic Plan 2012–16

We published our Strategic Plan for2012–2016 at the end of March2012. It sets out our key objectivesfor the next four years, based onanticipated changes in the externalenvironment that impact on ourwork, and areas identified fordevelopment. As with previous plans,this Strategic Plan will be used todrive continuous improvement inthe services that we provide to ourstakeholders.

The five strategic objectivesconstitute our high level StrategicPlan and under it will sit businessplans for each year. The objectivesmaintain the focus on our five keystrands of work.

1. To provide a high quality,user-focussed, independentcomplaints handling service

By developing our capacity ascomplaints handlers to be able todeliver individual benefit to ourcustomers; by being accessibleand dealing with all enquiries andcomplaints impartially, consistently,effectively, proportionately and in atimely manner; and by producingclear, accurate and influentialdecisions about complaints.

2. To support public serviceimprovement in Scotland

By continuing to raise informedawareness of the role of the SPSOand to feed back and capitalise onthe learning from our consideration ofindividual enquiries and complaints,for example, through thematicreports, and by working inpartnership with public servicedeliverers, policy makers, scrutinybodies and regulators to promotegood administrative practice.

3. To improve complaintshandling by public serviceproviders

By using our expertise and resourcesto monitor, promote and facilitate thesharing of best practice and supportservice providers in improving theircomplaints handling.

4. To simplify the design andoperation of the complaintshandling system in Scottishpublic services

By working in partnership withservice providers, regulators andother key stakeholders to facilitatethe development of and compliancewith simplified, standardised anduser-focussed complaints handlingprocedures across the public sectoras an integral part of the wideradministrative justice system inScotland.

5. To be an accountable,best value organisation

By making best use of our resourcesand demonstrating continuousimprovement in our operationalefficiency and supporting theprofessional development ofour staff.

Equalities commitments

Our five equalities commitments forman integral part of the Strategic Plan.These are detailed in our Equality andDiversity chapter.

Consulting on the draftStrategic Plan

Under the terms of the ScottishParliamentary Commissions andCommissioners etc. Act 2010 wewere required to seek commenton our draft Strategic Plan.Our consultation was posted onour website and publicised inthe Ombudsman’s Commentary.We also wrote directly to around120 stakeholders inviting them tocomment on the plan. Theseincluded the statutory consultee(the Scottish ParliamentaryCorporate Body); ScottishGovernment public service reformcontacts and the clerks andconvenors of relevant ParliamentaryCommittees. We also contactedCOSLA and SOLACE; the chiefexecutives of local authorities;regulatory and scrutiny bodies;equalities bodies and advisorygroups.

We published all the comments wereceived on our website, along withindependent analysis of them andour reply to that analysis. In our replywe explained the changes we hadmade in light of the feedback fromrespondents, and expressed ourthanks to those who took the timeto participate in the consultation.


Vision and Values

YEARS

Vision

Our vision is of enhanced public confidence in high quality, continually improvingpublic services in Scotland which consistently meet the highest standards ofpublic administration. We aim to bring this about by providing a trusted, effectiveand efficient complaint handling service which remedies injustice for individualsresulting frommaladministration or service failure.

Values

We aim to be:

> courteous, considerate and respectful of people’s rights;

> independent, impartial, fair and expert in responding to complaints;

> accessible to all, and responsive to the needs of our users: complainantsand service providers;

> collaborative in our work with service providers, policy makers and otherstakeholders;

> open, accountable and proportionate about our work and governance,ensuring stakeholders understand our role and have confidence in our work;

> a best value organisation which is efficient, effective, flexible, and makesgood use of resources; and

> best practice employers with well trained and highly motivated staff.


Business Plan 2012–13

Our key priorities are to:

1 deliver an efficient and effective complaint handling service, workingto stretching but achievable targets, continuously building qualityand accessibility;

2 share strategic lessons from our casework with service providersand appropriate scrutiny bodies; ensure service providers implementSPSO recommendations; and use communications tools effectively topromote understanding of the SPSO;

3 through the Complaints Standards Authority and training and outreachactivities, build and coordinate sectoral complaints handling networksand facilitate the sharing of good practice in complaints handling;

4 lead the simplification and standardisation of complaints handlingby working in partnership to develop and implement model complaintshandling procedures, based upon the SPSO statement of complaintshandling principles and guidance on a model complaints handlingprocedure; and

5 deliver operational efficiency, effectiveness and accountability throughclearly defined priorities, performance measures and resources that meetbusiness needs, while supporting development of new areas of business.

Statistics


AllC

asesD

etermined

2011–2012

Authority

Sector

Case

typeStage

Closure

categoryFurther

Health

Housing

LocalScottish

Governm

entO

therand

&higher

associationsgovernm

entand

devolvedoutof

Totaleducation

administration

jurisdiction

Enquiries

Advice

&signposting

Generalenquiry

016

328

624

77

Prem

ature2

1811

385

175

Outofjurisdiction

00

16

0447

454

Outcom

enotachievable

00

02

00

2

Nodecision

reached0

51

91

218

Totalenquiries2

3916

8312

474626

Com

plaintsAdvice

Prem

ature34

261184

729272

151,495

Body

outofjurisdiction0

10

00

1516

Matteroutofjurisdiction

(discretionary)3

43

189

037


(non-discretionary)5

1410

2037

591

Outcom

enotachievable

19

010

71

28

Nodecision

reached27

22540

258171

20741

Total70

514237

1,035496

562,408

Early

Resolution

1Prem

ature4

292

5131

0117

Body

outofjurisdiction0

00

00

1010


(discretionary)4

291

5316

0103


(non-discretionary)6

159

4333

2108

Outcom

enotachievable

216

228

200

68

Nodecision

reached10

388

5262

1171

Total26

12722

227162

13577

Early

Resolution

2Outcom

enotachievable

00

00

10

1

Nodecision

reached0

81

311

023

Fullyupheld

111

210

110

35

Partly

upheld1

140

1413

042

Notupheld

434

1178

1090

236

Total6

6714

105145

0337

Investigation1

Nodecision

reached1

21

121

017

Fullyupheld

233

06

60

47

Partly

upheld3

672

3815

0125

Notupheld

684

263

260

181

Total12

1865

11948

0370

Investigation2

Nodecision

reached0

10

20

03

Fullyupheld

022

06

00

28

Partly

upheld1

180

11

021

Notupheld

02

02

00

4

Total1

430

111

056

Totalcomplaints

115937

2781,497

85269

3,748Totalcontacts

117976

2941,580

864543

4,374

Laid before the Scottish Parliamentby the Scottish Public ServicesOmbudsman in pursuance of section17 (1) of the Scottish Public ServicesOmbudsman Act 2002.

SPSO4 Melville StreetEdinburghEH3 7NS

Tel 0800 377 7330Fax 0800 377 7331Web www.spso.org.ukCSA www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk

spso annual report 2011-12

Documents

spso act

citizensof scotland

scottish solutionas

joint delivery of services

spso afterdevolution

health servicecommissioner

integration of health

scottish government