spso annual report 2013-14

TransformingScotland’sComplaintsCulture

ScottishPublicServicesOmbudsman S P S O A N N UA L R E P O RT 2013 – 14

Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Public ServicesOmbudsman in pursuance of section 17(1) and (3) of the ScottishPublic Services OmbudsmanAct 2002.

Contents

Ombudsman’s overview 5

Casework performanceStrategic objective 1 11

ImpactStrategic objective 2 21

Case studies 26

Transforming the complaints cultureStrategic objectives 3 & 4 33

Corporate performanceStrategic objective 5 43

Equality and diversity 47

Governance and accountabilityAudit & Advisory Committee 52Complaints about SPSO 55

Statistics 57

“I recognise the courage and staminait can take tomake a complaint abouta public service andwework hardto put things right and to bring aboutlearning and change through thecomplaints thatwe see.”

Welcome to our 2013/14 annual report.Last year, we helped over 4,400 people in Scotland.We provided independent advice and support,investigating where we could the issues peoplebrought us. Wemade final stage decisions onalmost 900 complaints, providing individual justiceto people failed by public services.

We also improved public services by rigorouslyfollowing up nearly 1,200 recommendations.And by publishing our decisions, wemade publicauthoritiesmore transparent and accountable tothe people their services are for.

We achieved this against a background of receivinga record number of complaints, up 8% on theprevious year. 2013/14 is the fifth consecutive yearwe have seen an increase.

At the same time, we continued to successfullyput in place simple, accessible, standardisedand effective complaints handling proceduresacrossmore areas of the Scottish public sector.

Complaints are a key way for public authoritiesto learn about services that are not workingwelland to use that feedback tomake improvements.Thanks to our complaints standards work,for the first timemembers of the public andothers will soon have access to clear, transparentand consistent information on the volumeof complaints service providers received and howthey handled these. There is alsomuch evidencethat, as well as providing accountability and otherclear benefits for service users, getting thingsright early savesmoney for the public purse.

Our work directly contributes to the ScottishNational Performance Framework, in particularthe national outcome of ensuring that publicservices are high quality, continually improving,efficient and responsive to local people’s needs.

Balancing demands on our serviceAs in somany businesses that are demand-led,there is an inherent tension in balancing serviceuser and other stakeholder needs. SPSOhasmultiple goals – efficiency, effectiveness,quality, accessibility, impact and public serviceimprovement. Each year the demands on uschange, andwe need to be flexible and creativein finding newways to carry out our differentfunctions.

Our productivity kept pace with the increaseddemand, thanks primarily to the extraordinarycommitment of SPSO staff. Their dedication andhard work allowed us to keep our heads abovewater as complaint numbers increased againand resources remained static. I am gratefulto the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Bodyfor recognising the challenge of the increase incomplaints and their complexity, and giving ustemporary funding in 2014/15 formore staff tocarry out investigations.

Ombudsman’soverview

Howdoes the SPSOmake a difference?I think individual stories are a powerful way of illustrating how a complaint canhave an impact on an individual and also lead towider change. I recognise thecourage and stamina it can take tomake a complaint about a public service andwework hard to put things right and to bring about learning and change throughthe complaints that we see.

An example of such a case is what happened to a 60 year oldmanwhowas takeninto hospital after a seizure. He had early onset dementia, and sight and hearingdifficulties. He had a stroke in hospital andwas discharged to a care home, where hewas given no physiotherapy care. His wife felt that hewas left to vegetate and saidthat, despite her havingwelfare power of attorney for her husband, the hospital hadnot included herwhenmaking decisions about his care and treatment. Among otherfailings,my investigation found that theman’s care needs had not been adequatelyassessed, therewere nomeaningful attempts at rehabilitation or to discharge himhome, and his dignity was not respected.

This case raised important issues under the Charter of Rights for peoplewithdementia and their carers in Scotland. Aswell as the significant injustice that theman and hiswife suffered, we identified failings not just in his treatment but also inhospital staff’s understanding of peoples’ rights under the relevant legislation (theAdults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act). To redress the personal injustice in so far aswas possible, I recommended that the board apologise to the couple and that, if hiswife agreed, they thoroughly assess theman to find out whether hewould benefitfromphysiotherapy and if so, arrange this. It is also our role to ensure that processesare changed so that failings are not repeated. To address the failings in this case,Imade recommendations to improve staff training in the care of peoplewith dementiaincluding asking the board to audit theward’s compliancewith the legislation.Weshared the outcomes of the complaint through our communications channels, addingto the intelligence that the Scottish Government, Healthcare Improvement Scotlandand others use to drive their scrutiny, regulatory and improvement activities.

Recommendations like these domake a difference.We follow up each one,and require the organisations to provide uswith evidence that they haveimplemented them.We check the hundreds of apologies, policy reviews,action plans and training programmes that we ask public bodies to carry out,tomake sure that they have donewhat they said theywould. The results of ourrecommendationsmean real changes in real services delivered to real people.

Person-centred public servicesRising complaint numbers is one challenge;another is changes in how public servicesare delivered.We need to be proactive andresponsive to policy proposals andmake surewe share our unique perspective on servicesin a way that reflects the experiences thatpeople using those services bring us throughtheir complaints.

In one particular policy area – integrationof health and social care, including social work –I am concerned about the time it is taking forsimple, coherent and effective complaintsprocedures to be put in place. I have commentedon this before, for example inmy evidence tothe Health Committee in October 2013, whenI said ‘... If we are serious about integration,all aspects... should be looked at, which shouldinclude complaints. It is amatter of some urgency.I would not want a system to be put in place andthen have a lag on the complaints side that causespeople to become frustratedwith the systemand begin to lose confidence in it. I urge peopleto think carefully about that.’

My concern is all the stronger because peopleusing health and social care services can oftenbe vulnerable. This is also the case for peopleusing social work procedures, where the paceof reform has been slow. Back in 2008, DouglasSinclair highlighted the need for simplification insocial work complaints pathways, saying that thecomplexity of the arrangements was puttingpeople off complaining. People still have to usethose arrangements, and it is now 2014.

One further issue I wish to highlight is that it isclear from discussions with some health boardsthat access by prisoners to the NHS complaintsprocess remains problematic. It is worth notingthat the number of complaints received by SPSOremains well below the levels escalated to ScottishMinisters under the previous complaints system.Again, this is an issue I have raised in variousways throughout 2013/14.

Complaints on the increaseWesaw complaint numbers rise inmost areasof the public sector. Thismost likely relatesto greater public awareness of complaints(and hopefully of the benefits of complaining)resulting frommedia coverage of problems,particularly in theNHS in thewake of the FrancisInquiry. Another possible factor is themorestreamlined processes now operating underthe standardised complaints procedures.I explained in last year’s report that a possibleunintended consequence ofmore accessiblesystems could be thatmore complaints come tous because people are getting through the localprocedure quicker, finding their complaint easier topursue, and are being appropriately signposted tous. Thismay also explain the continuing drop (of 6%on last year) in the rate of premature complaints(complaints that reach us before the organisation’sown process has been completed). It is early daysthough, andwewill continue tomonitor this.

We upheldmore complaints (overall 4%morethan last year) which tellsme there is still workto do in supporting organisations in gettingthings right when people complain to them.

Ombudsman’s overview

Making complaintsmore effectiveIn 2013/14, we supported public authorities inputting in placemodel complaints handlingprocedures (CHPs) in three new areas: furthereducation, higher education and the sectormade up of the Scottish Government, ScottishParliament and associated public bodies.Our support includes providing advice andguidance tools, sharing best practice, facilitatingnetworks of complaints practitioners anddelivering extensive training activities.

Customers benefit from the standardisedapproach because, increasingly, anyone usinga public service now knowswhat to expectwhenmaking a complaint. For organisations,there is clarity and consistency about stagesand timescales. There are opportunities forlearning and improvement to services throughincreased responsiveness, transparency andoversight. There is also a developing performanceculture in complaints handling. I have been keento drive this over the past year, in part throughdeliveringmaster classes on the fundamentalimportance of complaints in terms of corporategovernance and responsibility, taking on thelessons of the Francis Inquiry into theMid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

2013/14 is the first year for which the sectorsthat have already implementedmodel CHPsare required to report their annual statistics.This is a true turning point for the public sectorin Scotland, in enabling complaints to help driveservice improvements across organisationsand sectors.

TheScottishmodelThe efficiency and quality of our casework andthe benefits brought about by improved publicsector complaints handling procedures attracteda great deal of interest fromother ombudsmanoffices and other countries. I detail some of thisbelow.While highlighting our growing reputationfor getting things done and donewell, I want toemphasise that we are by nomeans resting onour laurels. I recognise that there remainsa great deal to be done.

I gave evidence to aWestminster inquiryinto the Parliamentary andHealth ServiceOmbudsman (PHSO). The PHSO is the finalstage for complaints about UK governmentdepartments and agencies and theNHS inEngland. The inquiry’s report recommendedconsulting on creating a single public servicesombudsman for England. It also called fornew legislation that would give the PHSO thepower to oversee complaints processesacross its jurisdiction and a formal role in settingcomplaints standards and training in complaintshandling. This would draw on the Scottishlegislation that enabled us to set up our ComplaintsStandards Authority (CSA), a body that is uniqueamongUK ombudsmen (and as far as I amawareis unique outside theUK aswell).

I was also asked to contribute to an externalevaluation of the Local Government Ombudsman(LGO) for England, whichmade recommendationsto help ensure the consistency of decisions,strengthen corporate governance and assurethe public of its independence.


Wehosted a large number of visits fromScottish organisations and other ombudsmenand complaints handlers, whowanted to findoutmore about our casework process andthe CSA. Visitors came fromScotland’sCommissioner for Children and Young People,the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission,the Legal Ombudsman, OmbudsmanServices(which handles complaints about communications,energy providers and property in England andWales), theHousing Ombudsman, the LGO, thePublic Services Ombudsman forWales and theNorthern Ireland Ombudsman. TheOffice of theIndependent Adjudicator, which handles complaintsabout higher education in England, has decidedto use ourmodel complaints handling procedureas the basis for developing a framework for astandardised procedure across its jurisdiction,andUniversity CollegeDublin has unilaterallyalready done so.We also hosted visits fromAustralia, China, Ireland andNorway.

Our quality assurance (QA) process, which ensuresthat our decision-making is robust and consistent,was nominated by our ombudsman peers as anexample of best practice innovation. I was invitedto speak at a EuropeanOmbudsman conferenceabout our QA and the otherwayswe continuouslybuild quality into ourwork.Wewere also heavilyinvolved in the activities of the OmbudsmanAssociation, wherewe are on the ExecutiveCommittee, chair the First Contact andHRworking groups and are represented on thelegal and communications groups.

Our expertise in delivering training and developinge-learningmodules in complaints handling wassought after. We delivered over 50 courses acrossScotland and expanded our e-learning platform.We developed complaints handling trainingmaterials with NHS Education for Scotland,

specifically for NHS staff, and theNHSin England are adapting these to train their entirestaff. Our trainingmaterials have also beenrequested by local authority staff in New Zealand.

It is worth noting that our training unit is run byone person, with support fromSPSO colleagues.Indeed, our entire staff number only around 50.I think the expansion of activities and the interestin what we have achieved is a reflection of theexcellent work done by what is a relatively smallteam of people at SPSO. I am pleased to recognisean outstanding year for the office and hope thatthis annual report does justice to the huge effortthey havemade, the innovations and solutions theyhave come upwith and the ongoing dedicationthey demonstrate tomaking a difference.

JimMartin, SPSO


“This is a true turning pointfor the public sector inScotland, in enablingcomplaints to help driveservice improvementsacross organisations.”

This section highlights:

> casework volumes and outcomes

> howwemanaged the increased demand

> timescales

> howwe ensured the quality of our serviceand our decisions

> stakeholder involvement

Case volumesAlthough our level of investigation resourceremained the same in 2013/14, wewere able toachieve an 8% rise in productivity andmanage the8% increase in complaints to us.We did this bycontinuing to focus on performancemanagementand quality assurance, and by carrying out asuccessful pilot project that introduced expertiseearlier in our process.

There is a detailed tablewith all the outcomes ofthe complaints we dealt with in 2013/14 at the endof this report. Belowwe identify some key points.

Cases receivedThe number of complaints people brought uscontinued to rise for the fifth year in a row. In2013/14, we received 4,456, an increase of 8%on the 4,120we received the previous year.We handled 8%more complaints, 4,408comparedwith 4,077 the year before.

Enquirieswent down to 363 from531 the yearbefore. There is a breakdown of enquiries atthe end of this report. It shows the organisationstowhichwemost frequently signposted people,the top two being Citizens Advice Scotland andthe Financial OmbudsmanService.

Most of the increase in complaints received camefrom the two sectors thatmake up 70%of ourworkload, local government and health. Localgovernment complaints received rose 16% from1,505 in 2012/13 to 1,750 last year. Healthcomplaints rose 11.5% from1,237 to 1,379.Other sectors saw rises and falls in complaintsreceived (for example housing associations up by7%andwater providers down by 17%) but on lessstatistically significant volumes.

Complaints received by sector in 2013/14

PAGE 11

Casework performance

SECTOR COMPLAINTS % OF TOTAL

Further&higher education 125 3%

Health 1,379 31%

Housing associations 351 8%

Local authority 1,750 39%

ScottishGovernment&devolved admin 535 12%

Water 292 6.5%

Other 24 0.5%

Total 4,456 100%

3%31%

8%39%

12%

6.5%

0.5%

Changing profile of complaintsThemain positive for service users from the2013/14 figures is the further drop in the numberof complaints we saw that were premature (iethat reached us before they had completed thepublic organisation’s own complaints procedure).Four years ago the rate of premature complaintswas 51%. It has fallen gradually since then, and in2013/14 it was 34%, a 6% overall decrease on theprevious year.

Every sector under jurisdiction saw a decreasein premature complaints, the percentage dropbeingmore pronounced in those sectors wherewe saw fewer complaints.

The fall suggests that there ismore effectivesignposting about when to refer complaints to us.This is good news for complainants, as it can bevery frustrating for people to have to return to theorganisation they were first complaining about.The lower rate of premature complaints suggeststhat people are getting their complaint dealt withat the right place and using the SPSO properly asthe final stage in the process.

Primary responsibility for this lies with the publicauthorities that are dealing with the complaints.Consistency in achieving this effectivenessmayhave been helped by the explicit guidance on howandwhen to signpost to us, contained in themodel complaints handling procedures.

This welcome reduction in premature complaintsalsomeans thatmore of the complaints we seeare ready for us to consider. Clearly, however,investigating amature complaint takesmoretime than providing support and advice on apremature complaint. It is also worth noting thatthe sector in which complaints usually presentthemost complexity is health, and this is wherethe premature rate has dropped least. The addedcomplexity within health complaints is that here,uniquely, we have powers of clinical judgement.Thismeans that we are able to consider whatthe health professional did andwhether it wasreasonable in the circumstances, so wewill oftenbe examiningmedical records and other clinicalevidence and seeking independent specialistadvice. This can be particularly resource andtime intensive comparedwithmost complaintsabout other areas.

This changing profile puts greater pressure onthe later stages of our process where we lookat what wemay be able to achieve for peoplewhose complaints aremature. In 2013/14, wesuccessfully applied for temporary funding fortwo additional complaints reviewers, and theseposts were filled in April 2014.


Reduction in premature complaintsover past 2 years by sector

SECTOR 2012 – 13 2013 – 14 % DIFFERENCE

Further andhighereducation 44 27 -39%

Health 356 350 -2%

Housingassociations 175 163 -7%

Local authority 750 692 -8%

ScottishGovernmentand devolvedadmin 156 140 -10%

Water 133 117 -12%

Other 11 6 -45%

Pilot project – giving peopleanswers earlierWe are always looking for ways tomaximisethe efficiency and effectiveness of our process.In 2013/14 we introduced a sixmonth pilot projectwhere a small team of complaints reviewersworked closely with our advice team. This enabledus to bettermanage expectations early on as towhat we could achieve for the personmakingthe complaint.

The pilot introduced amuch earlier triage ofcomplaints, enabling complaints reviewers to letmany complainants knowmore quickly whetherwe could achieve what they were looking for. Thismeant that people were getting an answer soonerand this was of course a positive outcome. Giventhe success of the pilot, we decided to continueit into 2014/15.

While the number of casesmoving on to beinvestigated remained at the same level as in2012/13, this project led to a rise in the numberof complaints determined in one category, that ofpeople whowithdrew complaints, did not ‘dulymake’ their complaint or wanted an outcome thatwe could not achieve for them. These increasedfrom 1,017 last year to 1,436. In these cases, weoften reached no final decision and invited thesecomplainants to come back to SPSO if they wantedus to look at their issue inmore detail or to providemore evidence thatmight allow us to take itfurther.

We analysed the complaints that contributed tothis increase and found theseweremainly localauthority complaints. Initial indications are thatthese represent an underlying dissatisfactionwith discretionary decisionsmade by the localauthorities concerned, which we cannot look atwhere there is no evidence ofmaladministrationor service failure. Wewill, however, continue toanalyse these complaints to identify any commonthemes that we could pass on to the appropriatelocal authority and other stakeholders to helpinform their work.

Complaints by sector

Case decisionsIn 2012/13, we dealt with around 60% of our casesat the advice stage. In 2013/14 this rose to 64%,thanks to the pilot project described above.

In 2013/14, 1,579 cases were passed on from theadvice stage for further detailed review, comparedwith 1,601 in 2012/13. At this stage, we try to talk tothe complainant tomake sure we understand theircomplaint and the outcome they want. We aim tosee if there is a resolution that can be achieved,and in 2013/14 we resolved 63 complaints at thisstage comparedwith 47 the previous year.

We also decided a further 622 cases at this stage.Thesewere premature, out of jurisdiction, or wewere unable to take thematter further becausethe complainant did not provide us with enoughinformation, withdrew the complaint, or wantedan outcomewe could not achieve for them.


Complaints dealtwith by sector2012–13 and 2013–14

SECTOR 2012 – 13 2013 – 14

Further andhigher education 138 111

Health 1,197 1,324

Housingassociations 316 360

Local authority 1,507 1,747

ScottishGovernmentand devolvedadministration 527 528

Water 347 314

Other 45 24

Total 4,077 4,408


The number of complaintsreceived rose by8% on last year

We handled 4,408 complaints,8%more than last year

Key figures 2013–14

The number of prematurecomplaints fell to 34% of ourcaseload (6% less than last year)

People who receivedadvice, support andsignposting: 3,192

Number of cases decidedfollowing detailedconsideration

pre-investigation: 685

Wemade 1,197recommendations for redress andimprovements to public services(19%more than last year)

The overall rate of upheldcomplaints was50%(up from 46% last year)

Complaints fully investigated:894with 895* publicly reported

to parliament

* Some of the cases published in 2013/14 will have been handled in 2012/13. In a small number of caseswe do not put information in the public domain, usually to prevent the possibility of someone being identified.

InvestigationsWe gave our decision by letter in 850 cases,comparedwith 895 in the previous year. We alsopublished 44 full detailed investigation reports,the same number as the previous year.

Upheld complaintsOf all the complaints that were ‘fit for SPSO’(i.e. ready for us to look at and about a subjectthat we could look at), we upheld or partly upheld50%, up from 46% in 2012/13. ‘Upheld’ includesfully and partly upheld complaints. Much ofthe rise was due to small increases in upheldcomplaints in the two sectors about which wereceivemost complaints, local authorities(up 2% on last year to 49%) and health (up 3%on last year to 55%).

As we reported last year, we have beenworkingwith a number of individual organisationsthat we identified as having both high volumesof complaints reaching us and high upholdrates after investigation. Having analysed thereasons for these last year, we are continuingto work with a small number of thoseorganisations where we feel a greater focuson good complaints handling will help themreduce both the volume of complaints andtheir uphold rates.

We uphold complaints wherever we find fault,even if this has already been recognised by theorganisation. We do this to recognise the validityof the complainant’s experience. People come tous for an external, independent judgement aboutwhat happened and if we find that somethingwent wrong it is important for the complainantthat we acknowledge this. We also include in ourreports how the organisation responded to theoriginal complaint and any action that they took,or plan to take, to put things right. Where anorganisation has respondedwell, while wewilluphold the complaint, wemay also publiclycommend them for acknowledging themistakesthat happened and the action they took toresolve this for the complainant, andwe areunlikely to need tomake recommendations.


“People come to us foran external, independentjudgement aboutwhathappened and ifwe findthat somethingwentwrong it is important forthe complainant thatweacknowledge this.”

Casework performance information for 2013/14 is available onour website atwww.spso.org.uk/statistics

http://www.spso.org.uk/statistics

Sharing learningOur reports are intended to raise wider publicawareness and support learning. Full detailedinvestigation reports have particular potential todo this andwe take care to highlight them inour e-newsletter. As is the case each year, themajority of these are about the health sector,usually because of the severity of the individualinjustice or because there was a particular issuewewanted to highlight. In 2013/14, these issuesincludedmental health, pressure ulcers, careof vulnerable adults, barriers to prisonersaccessing theNHS complaints process andrecord-keeping.Wewill givemore detail ofthese in our dedicated health complaints reportlater this year.

We also published two detailed reports abouta water industry licensed provider becausewe identified serious systemic issues in theircomplaints handling.We published one reportabout the tendering process for a ferry route,where we recommended that as amatter ofurgency the government agency responsiblecontinue to look atmeasures to reduceweatherrelated ferry cancellations and to increase thereliability of the route for passengers. Finally,we published a report about a commissioner’shandling of a complaint about the actionsof a councillor.

There ismuchmore about howwe sharelearning in the next chapter on ‘Impact’.

TimescalesClearly, the time taken to handle complaintswill vary significantly from case to case,depending on the level of advice, resolution workor investigation required.We have, however, setaverage timescales for staff to work towards inthese different areas, which we publish on ourwebsite. Despite the increase in case volumes,wemet two of our three internal timescales, asdetailed below:

> PI-1 99% (target: 95% of advice stagecomplaints handled within 10 working days)

> PI-2 70% (target: 95% of early resolutioncomplaints decided ormoved tomorecomplex investigation stagewithin 50working days)

> PI-3 96% (target: 95% of investigationcomplaints decidedwithin 260 working days)

We anticipate that the pilot described earlierand other initiatives underway will enable us tomake progress against our second internalperformancemeasure in the coming year.


We publish reports of almost all of our investigations onlineand they are searchable atwww.spso.org.uk/our-findings

http://www.spso.org.uk/our-findings

Quality of service anddecisionsWehave an internal forum that considers allthe information we receive about our service,to ensure that we are learning and improvingas a result of what users are telling us. The forummeets quarterly to consider the various sourcesof intelligence: quality assurance, reviews ofdecisions and customer service complaints.It shares learning and recommends andimplements improvement initiatives. We publishstatistics on our website about reviews of ourdecisions and customer service complaints aboutSPSO, andwe share key findings, areas forimprovement and good practice, both withindividuals and across our office for widerlearning and development.

On customer service, researchwe have carriedout previously tells us that people need us tolisten properly to their concerns and beempathetic. They want us to be upfront withthem about what we can and cannot achieve,and provide information in plain English andby themeans of communication they want.Oncewe take a complaint on, people expectus to use our investigative skills tomake anindependent, impartial examination of anythingthat went wrong andmake recommendations toput things right. Whether or not we find in theirfavour, people should be satisfied that we haveheard their concerns, considered the evidenceand carried out a thorough investigation.

Quality assurance (QA)In addition to senior level review of decisions,we ensure quality through our QA process.This is a constantly evolving tool and ourcurrent process involves randomly testinga 10% sample of our work at different stagesin our process. We look carefully at the lessonsfrom each quarterly QA review, and this helps usdetermine our focus for each year. In 2013/14we concentrated on reviewing and expandingthe criteria we use and linkingmore closelywith our customer service standards.

We did not change any decisions followingQA in 2013/14. We did give careful, closerconsideration to a small number of decisionsand found some instances where we could havegiven a clearer explanation or where we couldhave obtainedmore evidence to support ourconclusions. Wewere, nevertheless, satisfiedwiththe decision reached in these cases. Senior staffthoroughly examined any case that raised suchquestions, involving the staff member whoconsidered the complaint in order to share ina positive way any learning identified.

We also identifiedmany examples of good practice,which we always highlight in our quarterly reports,to celebrate the goodwork of colleagues and todemonstrate what we should aim for.

In 2014/15 wewill further develop our servicestandards so that theymore clearly express thelink with our QA process, so that our customers,other stakeholders and staff knowwhat should beexpected when they are in contact with our office.


“Whether or notwe findin their favour, peopleshould be satisfied thatwehave heard theirconcerns, consideredthe evidence andcarried out a thoroughinvestigation.”

Reviews of our decisionsWe also carefully analyse requests for reviews ofour decisions to check that we are getting thingsright and take action in any where we have not.

Before we issue a decision, wherever possiblewe phone complainants to explain our decisionand give them the option to discuss it with us.Whenwe send a decision letter, we remindcomplainants and organisations that they can askfor a review if they think there is new evidenceabout the complaint, or that there are factualinaccuracies in our decision. This is a process weset up ourselves, which is non-statutory (i.e. weare not required by law to have it). It includesdecisions not to look at a complaint, as well asthe decisions we give after an investigation.

When people ask us for a review, they aredisagreeing with our decision. However, we oftenfind that the information they provide does notfall within our criteria for a review. Even so, theirrequestmay give us the opportunity to addresstheir concerns about what we have said and, insome cases, to provide further explanationsabout our powers and the reasons for ourdecisions. This also helps us feed back to ourstaff how they could have communicated adecisionmore thoroughly or clearly.

In 2013/14 we received 260 requests for review(5.7% of our caseload) and closed 276 (somecases received at the end of 2012/13 weredealt with in 2013/14). We changed the originaldecision in five of these. In these cases we eitherdid not feel we had enough evidence to reachthe original conclusion, or felt we could haveexercised our discretion to consider thecomplaint. We re-opened eight complaints inlight of new information received (i.e. entirely newand relevant information that we did not haveduring the original investigation).

We have a separate process for full detailedinvestigation reports. Before we publish thefinal report, we send the complainant(s) andorganisation involved a draft copy and ask forany comments.

All our decisions are subject to judicial review.There were, however, no judicial reviewchallenges in 2013/14 by either complainantsor public organisations (this has been the casesince 2007).

Customer service complaintsWehave a separate process for people who areunhappy with our service. This is our customerservice complaints scheme, which is alsonon-statutory. It has two internal stages,followed by referral to an external IndependentService Delivery Reviewer (ISDR). We report oncomplaints about our service inmore detail in alater chapter, where the ISDR also provides areport of his findings. We share the learning fromthese complaints internally and publish reportson our website to assure our customers thatcomplaining to us doesmake a difference and tolet them knowwhat we have done to address anyfailings that are identified.


“We share the learning fromthese complaints internallyand publish reports toassure our customers thatcomplaining to us doesmake a difference and to letthemknowwhatwehavedone to address any failingsthat are identified.”

Stakeholder involvement

Customer sounding boardWewant to involve the public in helping usimprove our service andwith this inmindweset up a customer sounding board whichmetfor the first time in December 2013. Membersare representatives of different public serviceuser groups including:

> Age Scotland

> Alliance Scotland

> A prison visiting committee

> Citizens Advice Scotland

> Consumer Futures

> Patient Opinion Scotland

> Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance

> Tenant Participation AdvisoryService Scotland

Wewelcomed the sounding board’s input onthe information we give customers aboutour service and on initiatives such as ourproposed revised service standards. Thesounding board also discussedmore generalthemes such as socialmedia and other routesfor feedback and complaints; people’sexperience of health and social care integrationcomplaints pathways; the ScottishWelfare Fundand prisoner access to complaints processes.

We also discussed different ways in whichorganisations gather feedback from service users.This ongoing conversation is proving very usefulas we prepare to issue our next survey to usersof our service in 2014/15.


This section outlines what we have done toensure that the outcomes of our consideration ofcomplaints, in particular our recommendations,were relevant, joined-up and drove improvementsin public services. We highlight howwe usedcommunication channels to ensure accessibilityand howwe developed newways to help ushear from our stakeholders.

Sharing strategic lessonsThrough our recommendationswe tryto fix things for people and ensure that publicauthorities learn lessons from complaints andmonitor improvements.While it is ultimatelyfor the organisations themselves (supported anddriven by regulators and other improvement andscrutiny bodies) to bring about change on theground, our recommendations representsignificant tools that can helpmake that change.

We see our role as identifying failings andmakingrecommendations that put organisations back onthe right track.We see it as the role of other scrutinybodies to regularly review processes and ensurethat organisations stay on that track. To put itanotherway, our investigation is a red flag thatmakes the organisation sit up, take notice andmakechanges; regulators and other improvement andscrutiny bodies carry out green flag checks in acontinuous and systematic way that show that theorganisation is acting properly.

There are threemainways inwhichwe sharelearning:> putting information, including analysis

and trends, into the public domain;> working alongside regulators and other

improvement and scrutiny bodies to ensurethat people’s concerns are fully addressed anddo not fall between the cracks; and

> encouraging regulators and other improvementand scrutiny bodies to build key aspects of goodcomplaints handling into their workwherepossible to help drive a valuing complaintsculture across the public sector.

Providing informationWeshare learning from the complaints wesee through:

> publishing a significant volume of decisionsand statistics about sectors and individualservice providers on our SPSOwebsite

> e-newsletters, sectoral reports, annual lettersand our Valuing Complaints website

> consultation and inquiry responses

> providingwritten and oral evidence toparliamentary committees and others

> participating inworking groups

> conferences,meetings, presentationsand visits.

In a later chapter we describe how the newrequirement on public sector organisations topublish consistent complaints data will supportimprovement.

Maximising the impactWe are keen to strengthen links with regulatorsand other improvement and scrutiny bodiesandwe recognise the value of our different roles.An example of the inter-relatedness of our workwas highlighted in our April 2013 commentaryabout the care and treatment provided to a youngman before he committed suicide. TheMentalWelfareCommission for Scotland (MWCS) hadconducted a review into theman’s death and usedthe case to raise broad concerns about howservices respond to young people withmultipleproblems.Whenwe investigated the case, we didso from our specific standpoint of looking at theindividual experience of the personwho hadbrought the complaint, in this case the fatherof the youngman.

Given our different roles and remits, theMWCSreview and our investigation examined somedifferent areas. However, the two reportscomplemented one another inmany ways,and several of the conclusions were similar.

PAGE 21

Impact

Wehave a duty to alert the appropriate authorityif we see serious failings andwill also do so ifour investigation points to the possibility of asystemic issue. In these cases wemay pass oninformation to professional regulatory bodiessuch as theGeneralMedical Council.

We also shared relevant cases with theScottishHumanRights Commission, forexample investigations where we found a failuretomaintain dignity and respect in someone’shealthcare. The Ombudsman sat on theCommission’s Advisory Panel that developedthe Scottish National Action Plan on HumanRights that was launched in December 2013.Hewelcomed the plan’s emphasis on helpingorganisations embed a human rights approachin their work.

Weworked closely withHealthcare ImprovementScotland (HIS) in 2013/14, taking part in theirworking group looking at new guidance foradverse incident reviews. There are clearly areasofmutual learning in this work. For example, thegroup noted the significant overlap in the skillsrequired to undertake complaints investigationsand to review adverse events, and looked atsupporting NHS boards to translate learning intoservice improvement and to share outcomesacross services and boards.

HIS also invited SPSO to be represented ontheir Healthcare Intelligence Review group.This groupwill helpmembers share the differenttypes of information they hold to identify the keyearly signs of problems and help HIS to reactpromptly to those.

Following the transfer to the NHS of responsibilityfor healthcare in prisons, we identified somebarriers to prisoners raising complaints.In aMay 2013 investigation we found that aprisoner had been unreasonably denied access tothe process. Wewere pleased to be able to reportthat the Scottish Government was being proactivebut also commented in our e-newsletter andsubsequent evidence to the Health Committeethat: ‘It is now 18 months since the transfer ofresponsibility and it is high time that these issueswere fully addressed.’Wehighlighted the sameissues appearing in a different health board inOctober 2013. And in written evidence to theHealth Committee we said that while weappreciated there would be a time lag whileproblemswere ironed out, wewould be verydisappointed if wewere continuing to reporton access issues into 2014.

Impact

Our annual letters provide details of thecomplaints received anddealtwith about arelevant organisation or sector alongwithpremature and uphold rates, comparedwiththe previous year. Organisations use thesestatistics to help assess and benchmarkcomplaints performance.

In 2013/14wepublishedeight individual sectoral

complaints reports, andwereceived very positive feedback on

their usefulness and user-friendliness.Wewill be publishing similar reports

again this year, building up anincreasingly detailed picture ofthe issues arisingwithin and

across sectors.

Our arrangements with regulators and others are set out in protocolsandMoUs; see www.spso.org.uk/memoranda-understanding

Driving a culture that values complaintsThe key elements that we encourage regulatorsand other scrutiny and improvement bodies toensure are built in are:

> clear accessibility and visibility of thecomplaints procedure and related information.This includes clear signposting and supportfor those with needs or difficulties inaccessing the system, as well as ensuringthat real or perceived barriers to complaininghave been identified and removed.

> a focus on resolving things early at thefrontline, including ensuring apologies aregiven freely and action takenwhere thingsgowrong

> recording all complaints and reporting thisregularly in line withmodel complaintshandling procedures or other requirementssuch as the Patient Rights Act

> learning from service failures, with systemsin place to analyse and report on complaintsoutcomes, trends and actions taken. This wouldinclude seeking opportunities to share learningacross the relevant sector.

> ensuring that processes are in place to identifyand respond immediately to critical orsystemic service failures or risks identifiedfrom complaints

> strong, visible leadership on complaints fromsenior staff, including support and training anda recognition of the importance of effectivecomplaints handling to good governance.

ConsumerOmbudsmanIn 2013/14, wewere invited to contribute tothe Scottish Government’s discussions aboutconsumer protection and the possible creationof a Scottish Consumer Ombudsman.We offeredour experience on a range ofmatters such as asingle portal advice centre, common standardsof complaints handling, consolidating thecomplaints handling landscape, financial redress,the pros and cons of recommendations versusbinding decisions, how complaints link toimprovement, and the role ofmediation.The roundtables we attendedwere also usefulfor discussing the possible implications of theEuropean Directive on Alternative DisputeResolution, which requires there to be accessto dispute resolution for consumers.

Other areasWe responded to a wide range of other inquiries,work plans and consultations. Given ourcomplaints standards improvement role, andour focus on streamlining complaints processes,we responded in particular to changes that wouldaffect users of public services and their accessto complaints. These included section 70 of theEducation (Scotland) Act 1980, the RevenueScotland and Tax Powers Bill, draft standards forthe inspection of prisons in Scotland, petitions onwhistleblowing and an independent examinationsregulatory body, the Children and Young People(Scotland) Bill, proposals relating to the delegationof local authority functions and theMental Health(Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 andAdults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, taxmanagement, a guide for boardmembers ofpublic bodies in Scotland and the new housingpanel for Scotland.

Impact

See our consultation responses at www.spso.org.uk/consultations-and-inquiries

Tracking and follow-upon recommendationsIn 2013/14, we issued 1,197 recommendations oncaseswe closed (up from1,003 last year) andwhiletheword ‘recommendation’may seem to lackpunch, we do drive each one to completion under arigorous process.We issue each recommendationwith a deadline for implementation, andwemonitorcompletion times closely. In 2013/14, of 1,171recommendations due for implementation, 74%were carried out within the agreed timescale and98%within threemonths of the target date.

Whilewework hard to engagewith publicauthorities tomeet the timescaleswhereverpossible, ultimately it is down to each individualorganisation to implement the recommendationson a timely basis. There is some variationbetween sectors in the percentage ofrecommendations not being implemented on time.Theremay be structural or operational reasonsfor this, for example in theway that differentauthorities take decisions, which can slowdown implementation. And in caseswhererecommendations aremore complex,implementationmay sometimes take longerthan first anticipated.

Where we find that policies and practices areinadequate we can recommend that they arereviewed and changed.We can also haveprofessionals include discussions in theirappraisals about failings that we have identified.This happensmost often in the health sector.In all cases, we require organisations to provideevidence of implementation, for example:

> copies of the new policy/procedure orreview/audit we have asked for, with actionplans for implementation, and the outcomes

> documentation showing that the staff trainingwe asked for has been carried out

> proof that credits/payments we have askedfor have beenmade

> copies of apology letters, demonstrating that theysatisfy our guidance onmeaningful apology.

Where appropriatewewill ask one of ourindependent advisers to assess the evidence aswell.This can happenwith any of our recommendations,butwe do this particularlywherewehave identifiedsystemic issues. If we find that an organisation hasnot provided robust evidence,we go back to themuntil the recommendation has been implementedto our satisfaction.

Impact

Examples of recommendations:> a college review a disabled student’s application for a place

> a councilmeetwith awoman to explore her options for rehousing

> a council consider paying a landlord an amount equivalent to onemonth’s housing benefit payment

> a housing association offer aman a redress payment in linewith that offered to other neighbours

> aGP practice review a sample of their patient records to ensure that clinical note taking complieswith the relevant standards

> a hospital carry out a significant event analysis of the circumstances that led to aman’s death,and use this to improve their future practices

> a dentist refund the cost of treatment that aman had to get fromanother dental practice

> a prison ensure staff are aware of the procedure that should be followedwhen searching aprisoner's cell

> awater company adjust charges on an account, to credit it with half of the fees that were disputed.

Using communicationstools effectivelyWewant organisations to learn from their and others’complaints andwemake public asmany as possibleof our decisions and investigations, including therecommendations. This transparency helps holdorganisations to account, and the possibility ofreputational damage can sometimes be a useful leverfor ensuring improvements aremade.We aremindfulof this inmanaging press interest in ourwork.The press are an important facilitator of informationabout SPSO, and ourmedia reach expandedsignificantly in 2013/14,most likely in response tojournalists’ heightened interest in health stories.

Aswell asmaking almost all of our decisionspublic on ourwebsite, we have continued to publicisethe key learning from them through ourmonthlye-newsletter which has around 2,000 subscribers.We produce targeted information for differentstakeholder groups, and in 2013/14 this includedan updated guide forMSPs,MPs and parliamentarystaff. We also produced newmaterials in partnershipwith Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) as part of ourongoing project to strengthen our linkswith advisersand advocates.We developed a guide to all our keyinformation leaflets for CAS bureaumanagers andan e-learningmodule about the SPSO for bureaustaff and Patient Advice and Support Serviceadvisers. Thismaterial is also available throughthe Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance.

We recognise that people increasingly use socialmedia and digital services to access public servicesandwe continue tomeasure andmonitor the impactand value of our online services.We use Twitterregularly and our followers increased by 130% in2013/14 comparedwith the previous year.

In the final quarter of the business year, we visiteda number of prisons andwere able to assess thevisibility and usage of our printed and audiomaterials.We are nowworking tomake furthermaterials available to ensurewe are as accessible aswe can be, especially for peoplewho have low literacylevels. This project is part of our continuing aim ofraising awareness among hard-to-reach or typicallyexcluded users and potential users of our service.

Listening to stakeholdersWenow have three sounding boards throughwhichwe seek stakeholder views. As we highlighted in thecasework section, we set up a customer soundingboard whosemembers include representatives ofadvice, advocacy and support groups. One of theprojects we are discussing with them is how togather user feedback on our service in preparationfor our next customer survey.

In 2013/14, our NHS sounding boardmet twice, afterits inauguralmeeting inMarch 2013. It ismade upof senior NHS professionals from across Scotland,including representatives of chairs of boards, chiefexecutives,medical and nursing directors andcomplaints handlers.

A new local authority sounding board was alsoset up, following a joint invitation from the chairof SOLACE (local authority chief executives)and the Ombudsman.Members includerepresentatives of SOLAR (local authority lawyers),ADES (directors of education), ADSW (directors ofsocial work), heads of planning, CIPFA (accountancyin public service), the Improvement Service andthe chair of the local authority complaints handlersnetwork.

The sounding boards allow for frank, two-waydiscussions about our role and effectiveness.They help us listen to where we can improve ourservice and provide a constructive environmentfor discussion and better understanding of issuesrelevant to each area, away from the considerationof individual cases. Theymeet two to three timesa year and details ofmembership andminutesare on our website.

Impact

This is a selection of case studies from investigationswepublished in 2013/14. Some illustrate thedouble injustice that can happenwhenapoorly delivered service is compoundedby poor complaintshandling. Other case studies are included to showsomeof the positive actions that organisations take inresponse to complaints. To share this good practice, in the report on ourwebsitewenormally highlightwhere an organisation has taken such action. Still other case studies summarised here are included asexamples ofwhere organisations have delivered a service and investigated the complaint properly.

Case Studies

A 55-year old woman, who has since died, was often in hospital. She had learningdifficulties and dementia and could not make her own decisions. Although she didn’t havea formal welfare guardian, she had an independent advocate to help protect her rights.In 2011, the womanwas in hospital several times. She couldn’t feed herself, and was fedthrough a tube. Hospital doctors decided that she should not be resuscitated if her heartstopped, and staff decided to remove her feeding tube during one admission to hospital.The woman died later that year, and her advocate complained to us about these decisions.

We found that the decision to stop feeding was taken before the woman’s dementia statuswas assessed, and was unreasonable. Themedical records did not support some of whatthe board said about the background to that decision. The doctor in charge had the finalsay on the resuscitation decision, but no-one spoke to the advocate or the woman’s carersabout it to explain it or find out what shemight have wanted.

The board havemade several positive changes since this happened. However, we werevery concerned about how they decided about treatment and how they dealt withthe woman’s decision-making capacity. They knew they were dealing with a very vulnerableperson, but there were significant delays in acting on legal safeguards that should haveprotected her. We recommended that the board use the woman’s case to review theirpractices when caring for patients with learning difficulties and suspected dementia,particularly in decision-making. We also asked them to improve their record-keeping in anumber of areas. Because of our concerns, we highlighted her case to theMental WelfareCommission for Scotland.

Case 201104966

Health: dementia; capacity for decision-making

Case Studies

Aman, who had been out for a drink with friends, fell downstairs at home. His wife found himunconscious and finding it very hard to breathe. When an ambulance arrived she said the crewdidn’t seem to want to take him to hospital and she overheard them talking about ‘drunks’.She said they only took him because his blood pressure was low. The crew transferred themanto a wheelchair to take him to the ambulance. He ended up paralysed, and his wife thought thatthis had something to do with the way the ambulance crew transferred him.

We couldn’t say whether what the ambulance crew did had any effect on what eventuallyhappened. But we found that once they realised how he had fallen, and that he had beenunconscious, they should have immobilised him as soon as possible, and they didn’t do that.The ambulance service’s response to the complaint also didn’t reflect the seriousness ofthis allegation, and it seemed from this that the staff involved weren’t interviewed. Much later,we were told that one of them had in fact left the service and the other had been disciplined.We were very concerned that the service did not send us all the information at the start,and that they gave us themissing details so late. We said they should have their complaintsprocess externally audited tomake sure it was fit for purpose. We also said they shouldapologise to theman and his wife because he wasn’t properly immobilised and becauseof their poor investigation.

Case 201301204

Health: ambulance; patient transfer, complaints handling

When a child with severe and complex additional support needs was enrolled in a school, theenrolment process and the child’s experiences at school meant there were real challengesfor everyone involved. An advocacy worker complained on behalf of the parents about someof what the school had done. The council eventually accepted that some actions had beenunreasonable, and upheld some of the complaints. We looked at how the council had handledthis, and found that they had taken far too long, had not apologised and hadn’t told the parentswhat had happened as a result of these complaints. We said they should apologise for this,and review their complaints handling process. We also said they should look at any learning –including on equality and diversity – arising from the complaints, and review how they handledthem to find out why such serious issues were not upheld earlier in their complaints process.

Case 201205187

Local government: additional support needs in school

Case Studies

A student appealed his academic results saying that in the circumstances therewere goodreasonswhy he had not donewell. His appeal was partly upheld, and his student representativethen asked for a review of that decision. This was refused as the university said that his evidencewas not valid, so the student could not continue his studies.We found that the university had nottaken into account all the information that would have provided a complete picture of thestudent's circumstances and given his appeal fair consideration.We said that they shouldapologise for this and reconsider his appeal.

Case 201304371

Higher education: appeals processes

Aman and his father exchanged their rented houses. Theman then found that he couldn’t buyhis new home through the right to buy scheme, as the schemewas suspended before heexchanged. He also found out that the suspension had since been extended for a further tenyears. The leaflet the housing association gave himwhen he exchanged did not mention thesuspension at all. It said that although one type of right to buy would be lost when theproperties were exchanged, someone in his position would qualify for themodernised rightto buy scheme. As the association could not show that they had told theman about thesuspension, we upheld his complaint, and also thought that they could have alerted him to thepossibility that the suspensionmight be extended. We said that they should apologise andconsidermaking him an ex-gratia payment. We also said they shouldmake sure that all oftheir paperwork is correctly updated, and that staff understand what they should tell people.

Case 201300633

Housing: right to buy

An action group were campaigning for a frequent, safe, reliable vehicle and passenger ferryservice. Transport Scotland had tendered for that service and had awarded a six year contracton a passenger-only basis. The action group felt the service provided was inadequate, andpointed out evidence of significant numbers of cancellations and of a considerable drop inpassenger numbers. We looked at the tendering process in detail, including a EuropeanCommission decision on state aid for ferry services. We did not find anything wrong in theprocess and did not uphold the complaints. However we recommended that TransportScotland urgently look at ways to reduce the number of cancelled ferries related to weatherconditions, and to increase the reliability of the route for passengers.

Case 201202798

Transport: ferry routes

Case Studies

Aman arranged for his children, whowere 16 and 15, to visit him in prison.When they got tothe visit room, theywere not allowed in andwere told this was because theywere not with anaccompanying adult (a person over 18). Theman complained that the prison allowed them to bookin for the visit, have their identities checked and go through themetal detector before being toldthat they both needed to bewith an adult. The younger child had been searched during theprocess, and had told staff then that the adult accompanying herwas her older brother.

The prison policy said that a person under the age of 16would not be allowed in unless theywere accompanied by a personwhowas at least 18.Mr C’s younger child was, therefore, notaccompanied by an appropriate adult, according to the prison policy, andwas searched therewithout an appropriate adult being present. After we asked the prison service about this severaltimes, they confirmed they did not have a specific national policy. They also checked on localpolicies and found that prisonswere not operating consistently, with some allowing theaccompanying adult to be 16 or over, and others 18 or over.We said they should explainwhatthey had done to put a consistent policy in place, consider discussing this with Scotland’sCommissioner for Children and Young People and, once they had a policy, take immediate stepstomake their staff fully aware of it.

Case 201101687

Prisons: visits fromchildren

Aman rented an industrial unit, which had a watermeter. He told us he heard nothing aboutwater charges until he got a bill reminder about fourmonths aftermoving in. He said hehadn’t received the bill and in any case themeter number and reading were wrong. The watercompany said they would investigate, and eventually sorted this out, but only after he hadchased them about it for ninemonths. A debt recovery agency also tried to get payment forthe disputed amount from him, even though his account wasmeant to be on hold. We couldn’tsee why this was so difficult to sort out. The water provider had not followed this up, and onlydid so when theman contacted them. They had already reduced his bill because of the delaybut we didn’t think that they reduced it enough in the circumstances. We recommended afurther payment, an apology and that they send us evidence of what they had done to stopthis happening again.

Case 201204157

Water: billing and charging

Case Studies

A couple were having problems with their neighbours’ behaviour. Their sleep was often disturbedand they were worried about the safety of their family and property. They complained to the councilabout their neighbours but were unhappy with the way their complaints were handled.

We found that the couple had complained about this for nineteenmonths. The council had recordeda number of the incidents, and had taken action after the first few, but didn’t follow up on latercomplaints. The couple had kept a diary of what happened, but the council had not followed up onthis either. It was clear fromwhat we saw that the council knew things were getting worse but theytook several months to get it sorted out. They didn’t tell the couple what was happening and didn’trespond to their complaints properly. We said they should apologise to the couple, and that theyshouldmake sure their staff knowwhat to do in cases of antisocial behaviour, what records theyshould keep and the importance of replying to complainants quickly.

Case 201200725

Local government: antisocial behaviour

Awoman told us it took too long for her housing association to fix damp and drainage problems.She had contacted themmany times on behalf of herself and her neighbours and felt shewasn’tgetting anywhere. The association had told her that the problemswere significant, and they’d found itdifficult to provide a timescale for fixing themas they had to investigate in detail. They’d accepted thatthey could have communicated better, offered her a voluntary payment as an apology, and explainedthat they’d introduced a new customer care centre to improve communications.

We found that it took around ninemonths for the problems to be addressed, but the association hadclearly beenworking on this during that time. The problemswere considerable and affected thewhole building.We agreed that thesewere exceptional circumstances, and that their actions aboutthe repairs were reasonable. On communication, although their responses becamemore helpful aswork progressed, we upheld this complaint as sometimes thewoman had to ask for informationrather than this being provided as it should have been.

Case 201204216

Housing: repairs and communication

Case Studies

We heard from a couple who’d had an unsuccessful first cycle of fertility treatment. Theythought they’d be offered a second cycle, but the health board decided not to do so. There hadbeen some delay in starting the initial treatment, and by the time we saw the complaint, theopportunity formore treatment by the board had gone. Although we decided that the decisionnot to provide the second treatment was within NHS guidelines, we criticised the way in whichthe couple were given information about the criteria for treatment. We also criticised thedelays in the process. We decided that the only meaningful way to provide redress was torecommend that the boardmake a financial payment for the amount that another cycle oftreatmentmight cost, should the couple seek treatment elsewhere.

This was an unusual recommendation and wemade it knowing that the NHS is not requiredto fund every available treatment. We recommended this because of a combination of veryparticular factors – the delays, the time-limited nature of themedical procedures, and thespecific personal circumstances of the people concerned.

Case 201200390

Health: fertility treatment

A prisoner was unhappy with how his complaints about his healthcare were treated. He hadsent the board a lot of feedback forms and a complaint form.We found that the board’scomplaints handling had been poor and said they should apologise for this.

Of evenmore concern, however, was a wider issue – we found that prisoners’ access to thecomplaints process was restricted. Although the board said that they thought forms wereavailable to those who wanted to complain, and that prisoners could write directly to the boardwith a complaint, we found that prisoners normally had to complete a nurse referral form,then ask for a complaints form. Even then, they sometimes only received a feedback form,unless they said that they didn’t want one. Thismeant that in some cases the feedback processwas used as an extra level of the NHS complaints process. NHS users don’t have to completea feedback process before accessing the complaints process, and it should be the same foranyone in prison. We recommended that the boardmake sure that prisoners could in futurehave easy access to NHS complaint forms.

Case 201203374

Health: prisoner access to complaints process

ComplaintsStandards Authority

Key steps 2013/14

most of thepublic sectornowoperatingone

standardisedmodelfor complaintshandling

first compliancetests carriedout

progress towardspublicauthorities publishing– forthefirst time–consistentanddetailed informationoncomplaints performance

andoutcomes

more complaintshandlersnetworks

set up

support andadvicetohundredsofpublic authoritiesimplementingnew

complaints procedures

our trainingcoursesande-learningexpanded

Asimple, standardised complaintssystem for the public sectorThis section outlines howwe havemade adifference in simplifying and improving howcomplaints are handled by public serviceproviders. This includes the key achievements ofour Complaints Standards Authority in 2013/14.The CSA undertakes the statutory duties given toSPSO following the Crerar and Sinclair reports,which recommended improvements to the waycomplaints are handled in Scotland. In linewith these, we have led the development andimplementation of standardised complaintsprocedures. We have also continued to fulfilour duty tomonitor, promote and facilitate thesharing of best practice in complaints handlingthrough:

> supporting public bodies

> coordinating networks of complaints handlers

> developing and sharing best practice

> high quality training.

Wewant tomake sure that complaints proceduresare simple and clear.When there are proposals tochange howservices are delivered or howpeoplecan ask for a decision to be looked at again, wedrawon our experience of the complaints peoplebring us.Weprovided input into several areas in2013/14. The key ones are listed belowandexpanded on at the end of this section:

> health and social care integration

> review of social work complaints procedures

> ScottishWelfare Fund

> Scottish Tribunals and Administrative JusticeAdvisory Committee.

Complaints handling procedures (CHPs)In 2013/14,more of the public sectorimplemented the standardisedmodel CHP.Like our previousworkwith local authorities andregistered social landlords (RSLs), we adopted apartnership approach and consultedwithworkinggroups of sector representatives to develop these.The successful implementation of these CHPsmeans that Scotland’s colleges and universitiesand over 70 organisations in the ScottishGovernment, Scottish Parliament and associatedbodies sector are following the same complaintssystem.

TheNHS already have a standardised process inplace under the revisedCan I Help You? guidance,published by the Scottish Government inMarch2012. In April 2014 the ScottishHealth Councilpublished a report1 on feedback, comments,concerns and complaints about theNHS. Itrecommended that the CSA should lead on thedevelopment of amore succinctlymodelled,standardised and person-centred complaintsprocess forNHSScotland.We are consideringthe report and theway inwhich this and otherSPSO-related recommendations can best betaken forward.

While there areminor sector-specificdifferences, themodel CHPs in place in eachsector contain the same key elements. Thismeans that for the public there are, generally,consistent, simple, accessible and timelyprocedures in place. We are confident that wehave helped achieve, as far as we can, theSinclair report’s vision of a simplified,standardised complaints procedure operatingacross the public sector. Full alignment,however, will be subject to further legislativechanges in a number of areas including socialcare and social work, which we discussfurther below.

PAGE 33

Transforming the complaints culture

1 http://www.scottishhealthcouncil.org/publications/research/listening_and_learning.aspx

http://www.scottishhealthcouncil.org/publications/research/listening_and_learning.aspx

Ensuring that the complaintsproceduresworkIn carrying out our duty to lead on standardisingCHPswe decided at the outset to involveregulators and scrutiny bodies. Wewere keenthat reporting andmonitoring of complaintsshould form part of the other information thatpublic service organisations are obliged toprovide. We therefore developed arrangementswith Audit Scotland, the Scottish HousingRegulator and the Scottish Funding Council toensure that compliancewith CHPs ismonitoredas part of regular scrutiny activity.

Organisations are required to self assess andwe provide tools to support them in doing this.We have, however, also carried out additionalmonitoring work on compliance and have beenpleasedwith the overall results. In 2013/14, welooked at the first two sectors to implementmodel CHPs – local government and RSLs.We informally sampled the accessibilityof local authority CHPs andwe tested CHPcompliance across a random sample of RSLs.The outcomeswere positive andwe found thevastmajority to be compliant, subject tominoramendments which have now beenmade.We discussed any concernswith theorganisations themselves andwith AuditScotland and the Scottish Housing Regulatorwhowere content with our approach tomonitorongoing improvement before initiating anycompliance action.

We provided particular support to the ScottishPrison Service, through participating asobservers in an SPS internal audit of complaintshandling arrangements. Wewelcomed theopportunity to observe complaints handling inprisons and offer our advice and expertise onvarious aspects of how complaints are handledincluding compliancewith the complaintshandling provisions of the Prison Rules, whichwere developed in line with key CSA principles.

The health sector is slightly different, as thePatient Rights Act requires NHS boards toproduce an annual report on their use offeedback, comments, concerns and complaints.Boards published their first reports for 2012/13and the Scottish Health Council reviewed2 these,comparing how boards responded to the newrequirements and identifying potential areasfor improvement in future reporting.

Reporting and publicisingcomplaints handling performanceUnder themodel CHP, organisations have topublish annual complaints statistics and learningagainst performance indicators. 2013/14 will bethe first year for which relevant organisationspublish clear, transparent and consistentcomplaints information.

We carried out some samplemonitoringof this during the year in the sectors alreadyfulfilling this requirement (local authorities andRSLs). Again, wewere pleased that the vastmajority of organisations hadmeasures in placefor internalmanagement reporting. However,in some cases this did not follow through toexternally publishing the outcomes ofcomplaints. Where we identified problems, weprovided support and guidance.We appreciatethat this level of reporting is new formostorganisations and that theremay be someissues early on.


2 http://www.scottishhealthcouncil.org/publications/research/review_of_nhs_feedback.aspx

“Wewere keen thatreporting andmonitoring ofcomplaints should formpartof the other information thatpublic service organisationsare obliged to provide.”

http://www.scottishhealthcouncil.org/publications/research/review_of_nhs_feedback.aspx

The respective complaints handlers networks foreach sector discussed our findings, including whatworkedwell and areas for improvement. Theresults were also discussedwith Audit Scotlandand the Scottish Housing Regulator whowerecontent with our approach to ongoingmonitoringof this requirement.

The performance indicators were developed inpartnership with the networks and are designedto be broadly consistent across the sectors.We are continuing to support the networks in theirdiscussions about how performance indicatorinformation should be presented andbenchmarked. The aim is tomove towards agreater consistency of reporting on complaintsand provide a basis for comparing performanceand supporting ongoing improvement.

Advice, support and guidanceA key aspect of our role is to work closelywith service providers, regulators and otherstakeholders to offer advice, support and guidanceabout themodel CHPs and effective complaintshandling. Throughout 2013/14 we continued toprovide this support across a range of issues.Many were straightforward requests, but othersrequired detailed advice, guidance and follow-upcontact.

Stakeholder enquiriesIn 2013/14, the CSA responded to over 900stakeholder enquiries. As we anticipated, therewas a shift in the source of the requests, reflectingthe stage of each sector in implementing itsmodelCHP. Many requests were about implementation,although the fact that the local government sectorcontinues to provide themajority demonstratesthat there is an ongoing need for advice onwideraspects of good complaints handling.


CSA contacts 2013/14CSA ENGAGEMENT TOTAL PERCENTAGEAND SUPPORT

Local government 265 29%

Scottishgovernmentagencies 190 21%

RSLs 124 14%

Highereducation 121 13%

Further education 102 11%

NHS 43 5%

Other 41 5%

Membersof thepublic 22 2%

Total 908 100%

29%

21%

14%

13%

11%

5%

5%

2%

Meetings, events and conferencesWe provided speakers at a total of 70conferences,meetings and events throughoutthe year. In doing so we provided direct supportand advice to individual bodies across all sectors.We also engaged stakeholders at a number ofcross-sector events and conferences, includingby speaking at various national complaintsconferences.

Our presence at these events allowed us to addvalue in several ways. This included:

> providing expert advice and guidance onimplementing the requirements of themodel CHPs

> explaining the need and value of reportingof complaints performance and learningoutcomes

> illustrating ways in which the consistentreporting of data will allow for benchmarkingof performance across sectors

> re-emphasising the governance requirementswithin the roles and responsibilities of seniorstaff in complaintsmanagement.

Overall our outreach activity has helped tocontinue the focus on improving the complaintsculture amongst public service providers.

Reflecting the interest in the progress of ourcomplaints improvement work, wewere invitedto speak at events in England to share ourexpertise in simplifying and improving complaintshandling, including an Academic RegistrarsCouncil event for higher education complaintshandlers and a conference of national healthand social caremanagers.

ValuingComplaintswebsiteand online forumIn 2013/14 we continued to facilitate the sharingof knowledge and best practice in complaintshandling through our dedicated CSAwebsite,which provides:

> information on the CSA and the statutory basisfor its work

> themodel CHPs and implementation guidance

> good practice guidance on complaints handlingand links to relevant sources of informationand best practice in complaints handling

> an online community forum for discussionand sharing best practice in the professionalcomplaints handling community, both withinand between sectors

> the SPSO training centre with access to oure-learning resources and information aboutcourses.

Resourcing constraintsmeant that we couldnot develop the website and forum asmuch aswe intended to in 2013/14. Wewant complaintshandlers to use the website as a centralinformation point, and in the coming year wewill be asking themhow they would like thiswork to be taken forward.


The CSAwebsite is at www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk

Sharing best practiceNetworks of complaints handlersThe aim of the networks is to share good practice,develop tools and guidance, support complaintshandling practitioners and provide a forumfor benchmarking complaints performanceinformation. The key to their effectiveness is thateach network is led by the sector for the sectorwith SPSO asmembers. Our role is to helpfacilitate their development, contribute ourexpertise and ideas and provide support andadvice on aspects of good complaints handlingand themodel CHPs.

Networks were set up in 2012/13 for localauthorities and RSLs. In 2013/14morewere setup in the further and higher education sectors andthe Scottish Government established a forum forall complaints handlers within its departments.

Local authority complaints handlers network

This is chaired by North Lanarkshire Counciland has over 60members, including SPSO.This year, all local authorities have beeninvolved in the work of the network, whichmetfour times in 2013/14. It considered a range ofissues including feedback on the operation ofthemodel CHP and performance reporting andindicators. There were sessions about the needsof children in the complaints process and thehandling of education service complaints.The network considered and shared bestpractice on learning from complaints. The keytheme in 2013/14 was benchmarking, withthe Improvement Service leading discussionson how best to align the benchmarking ofcomplaints information with their ownbenchmarking approach.

RSL complaints handlers network

The RSL network, chaired and coordinated byQueens Cross Housing Association and CastleRock Edinvar Housing Association,met once

during 2013/14 with over 50 housing associationshaving been involved inmeetings to date. As wellas sharing good practice, the network looked athow complaints categories could be standardisedto help benchmark performance and at reportingcomplaints performance.

Newnetworks

The further education complaints handlingadvisory groupwas formed in the developmentphase of themodel CHPs and is chaired byCollege Development Network. The groupmetregularly throughout 2013/14 to discuss theimplementation of the newCHP and reportingof information. The group operates as a smallersub-group of the Quality Development NetworkSteering Group, inputting to this wider groupof all colleges as andwhen required.

The higher education sector have developed agroup of complaints handling practitionerswhichmeets regularly to share best practice incomplaints handling. The Scottish Governmentalso set up a network for its complaints handlers,led at Director level. The SPSOwill contribute tothese groups as andwhen required.

Outputs

Some of the networks have published specificproducts, such as standardised reportingtemplates, lessons learned reports and goodpractice guides. We commended the furthereducation group for the work carried out byCumbernauld College, supported and guided byCollege Development Network, in developing anonline complaints handling tool for use by allcolleges. This is an excellent example of sharingservices, allowing colleges to develop aconsistency of recording and reporting acrossthe sector. Wewelcomed these outputs, whichare useful across individual sectors and alsosupport the creation of a cross-sectoral networkof complaints handlers.


To join a network, contact [email protected]

TrainingClassroomcoursesIn 2013/14 we directly delivered 56 frontlineand investigation skills courses, with particulardemand from the sectors where newmodel CHPswere introduced during the year. In new areaswe delivered:> five courses in further education> nine in higher education and> nine across a range of Scottish Governmentand associated public authorities.

We also delivered:> eighteen courses to local authorities> seven to housing associations> four to health bodies and> four to amix of organisations.

It was a busy year, but withmodel CHPs nowoperating inmost sectors, we expect demandin these sectors will slow in 2014/15. We do,however, anticipate demand from theNHSfollowing the recommendations on trainingmade in the Scottish Health Council reportListening and Learning.

Our courses continued to get very high ratingsfrom participants and thematerials weremuchsought after, including by other ombudsmenin the UK and overseas.

In addition to the direct delivery courses, wedeveloped tailoredmaterials for GPs anddentists. With the support of NHS Education forScotland (NES), we created audio case studiesas a training tool for practicemanagers. SPSOtrainers delivered workshops on how to use thematerial to over 200 GP and dental practicemanagers, who could then use thematerialsto train their own staff.

We also wanted to reinforce themessageabout corporate responsibility and complaints.In light of the lessons of the Francis Inquiry,the Ombudsman delivered a series ofmaster classsessions for chief executives and non-executivedirectors of NHS boards on the role of complaints ingood governance. These focused on the importanceof complaints and their value as indicators ofperformance, service quality and risk. NES has

a video recording of this session available on itswebsite alongside all the other tools that we havedeveloped for NHSScotland staff.

Classroom-based training for complaintsinvestigators and others involved in complaintshandling remains crucial to improving theway thatorganisations deal with complaints, particularly inreaching the right decisions first time. Alongwith thenew streamlined approach to complaints handling,we expect training to continue to be a significantfactor in howwe help drive improvements incomplaints handling culture andmanage thenumbers of complaints coming to the SPSO.

E-learning coursesIn 2012/13, we developed and launched our firste-learningmodules on frontline complaintshandling. The aim of these is to help the peopledealing directly with the public to feelmoreconfident responding to complaints. Themodulesin each sector were designed to support staffawareness of themodel CHP and good practicein frontline complaints handling. In 2013/14 over2,500 registered users accessed themodulesdirectly from our website. In addition to this we areaware thatmany public authorities have adaptedthe e-learning package for use on their own internalsystems. This was ground-breaking work, and,in light of the good uptake rates and positivefeedback, we expanded the range ofmodulesinto new sectors, adapting them for college anduniversity frontline staff in August 2013.

In the health sector, we built on the previous year’swork in developing e-learningmodules for frontlineNHS staff by developing a new e-learningmoduleon investigation skills. It helps participants explorethe complaints investigation journey from firstreceipt through to the final decision. It also coverslearning lessons from complaints and includesexamples of good practice. We developed this aspart of our second year of a programme of activitywith NES, and aim to adapt thismodule for use inother sectors.

Our approach to e-learning has received positivefeedback and the e-learningmodules for frontlineNHS staff have been requested for use by the NHSin England and local authorities in New Zealand.

All our e-learning trainingmaterials are free andare available to all public sector organisations.


Where we delivered courses in 2013–14


Formore about our training activities, visitwww.spsotraining.org.uk

www.spsotraining.org.uk

Simplifying the landscape:key areas of policy contributionHealth and social care integrationThe integration of health and social care wasa key focus for us this year. In our responses toScottish Government consultations on two areas– self-directed support and delegation of certainlocal authority functions undermental health andadults with incapacity legislation – we raised theimportant issue of the need for clarity aroundcomplaints. We also highlighted this in ourresponse to the Health Committee’s call forevidence about the Public Bodies (JointWorking)(Scotland) Bill.

Wewere invited to give evidence to the HealthCommittee at an October 2013 roundtable eventabout the role of regulators and complaintsbodies in relation to integration. We highlightedthe need for the complaints route to be clear andaccessible to service users, and for there to beno legislative barriers restricting public bodiesin their ability to investigate and respond tocomplaints in a joined-upway.

SocialworkFollowing their review of and consultation onsocial work complaints procedures, the ScottishGovernment indicated that their recommendedoptions were those that would see localauthorities adopt themodel CHP for social workcomplaints (but with some flexibility aroundtimescales) and the SPSO taking on the role ofComplaint Review Committees, with a remit overprofessional judgement. This was felt to be themost likely to create a fit-for-purpose complaintssystem for the future.We supported this option,as it fits with the aim of simplifying thecomplaints landscape in Scotland andwill alignsocial work complaints with wider local authoritycomplaints handling,making things simplerfor complainants and organisations alike.

In February 2013, the Government’s socialwork complaints working group reached broadagreement on these future options, subject tofurther discussion on detail. The working groupincluded SPSO, the Care Inspectorate, theConvention of Scottish Local Authorities, theAssociation of Directors of Social Work, theScottish Social Services Council and a numberof third sector organisations, includingCapability Scotland and Children First.

Following the recommendations of the workinggroup in July 2013, in advance ofmaking adecision on this, the Government elected tocommission further research on the needs ofservice users. As we have underlined throughoutthe lengthy review, consultation andworkinggroup process, people using social workcomplaints procedures are likely to be vulnerableand in need of support and effective, timelydecisions. We have also highlighted, on the basisof cases that we have seen, that the currentsystem is failing these vulnerable service users.

ScottishWelfare FundThe ScottishWelfare Fund (SWF) providesday-to-day living expenses to those on lowincomeswho are in crisis, as well as providingessential household items to those in need. SWFcomplaints came under our jurisdiction as partof a two-year interim arrangement in April 2013.The fund is administered by local authorities sothe SPSO became the final point for complaints.

The Government consulted on the permanentarrangements for the fund, including theoptions for review arrangements. Following theconsultation, they confirmed their intended policythat the SPSO take on a new role in reviewingdecisions. This wouldmean an unusual extensionto our jurisdiction, to include the ability to reviewand change SWF decisions, andwould have anumber of consequences, including adaptationsto our current remit, processes and procedures.


See our consultation responses at www.spso.org.uk/consultations–and–inquiries

http://www.spso.org.uk/consultations-and-inquiries

The Government’s proposal is included in theWelfare Funds (Scotland) Bill. Throughout theconsultation on this policy proposal, we have notexpressed a view onwhether this role shouldcome to us.We have emphasised that the SPSOis a Parliamentary body, and this is a decisionfor the Parliament to consider in its deliberationson the Bill.

Our consultation response highlights that if weare to take on the role, a number of importantissues need to be factored in:

> Accessibility, simplicity and timeliness:we appreciate that there will be a need tomake decisions quickly and to be fullyaccessible to people who aremore likely to bevulnerable and to have complex andmultipleneeds than themajority of our current serviceusers. Given this vulnerability, any optionmustbe genuinely accessible by them and it will beparticularly important that we have the abilityto respond quickly.

> Reporting and learning: it is vital that thesystem of review can demonstrate that it isimpartial and transparent. In line with ourcurrent systems for public reporting, wewillensure that wemake public the informationabout our performance, andwill publishanonymised summaries of decisions to advisepeople and agencies who are interested andenable them to learn from the cases we see.

> Complaint vs review: the proposal would givethe SPSO two new powers. These are that weshould be able to consider whether the decisionis one that should have beenmade, and todirect the local authority to put in place analternative decision if we consider a differentone should have beenmade. There are bothlegal and practical implications of theseadditional powers.

To prepare for this possible role, we areconsidering all this with the Government andScottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, as well asthe logistical issues that wewould need to resolveto ensure that wemeet customers’ needs.

PrisonsWe responded to two calls for evidenceon changes to the role of prison visitingcommittees (PVCs). In general, wewelcomedthe proposal to provide laymonitors with arole in complaints handling, building on theexisting role of PVCs. However, we said thatfurther clarity is needed to ensure thatcomplaints handling roles are definedwellandwork together, and that the existingprocess for handling complaints, particularlythat of the prison service, remains the principalavenue throughwhich prisoners can raisecomplaints. We also said there should begreater clarity on the status of reports andrecommendations, and highlighted theimportance of transparency of decisionsand consistency in what is reported.

Scottish Tribunals andAdministrativeJusticeAdvisory Committee (STAJAC)The STAJACwas established by the ScottishGovernment in November 2013 to championthe needs of users across the administrativejustice and tribunals system in Scotland, toprovide external scrutiny of the system indevolved areas and to highlight any issues toScottishMinisters.

Our head of complaints standards was invitedto join the committee to add our experience inimproving complaints handling to the committee’sadvice on developments in the wideradministrative justice landscape, includingtribunals and other routes of appeal. Thecommittee’s workplan focuses on various areasrelevant to complaints handling, including thecosts of administrative justice and how users canexpress dissatisfaction within the new integratedsystem of health and social care. We havecontinued to emphasise the importance ofcomplaints systems as one of the key routes forservice users to access administrative justice andthe importance of all administrative justice routesbeing user focused.


This section highlights:> strategic planning and delivery

> improving operational efficiency

> howwe support our staff

> statutory reporting

> financial performance

Strategic planning and deliveryIn 2013/14, we delivered year two of our 2012–16strategic plan, whichwe consulted on andpublished inMarch 2012, in linewith our legalobligations. The plan sets out our five strategicobjectives, which reflect the statutory functions ofthe Ombudsman. It also contains our equalitiescommitments, and provides the framework fordeveloping annual business plans andaccompanying annual performancemeasures.

Each year, progress against our strategic planand annual business plans andmeasures arereviewed regularly by operationalmanagement,the seniormanagement teamand the Audit andAdvisory Committee. Our business plans for2013/14 and 2014/15 and performancemeasuresfor each yearwere sharedwith SPCB officials.All of our plans andmeasures, alongwithminutes ofmeetings to record andmonitorprogress, are on ourwebsite.

Improving operational efficiencyThe corporate planning process plays a keyrole in ensuring operational efficiency andeffectiveness.We also use information fromexternal and internal audit to drive efficiency andeffectivelymanage risk. The outcome of theexternal audit engagement for the year 2013/14was an unqualified certificate from the externalauditors, Audit Scotland.

In 2013/14, as part of the three year internal auditprogramme for 2012–15, our internal auditors,the Scottish Legal Aid Board, looked at the areasof information systems installation, HR, payrolland absencemanagement, and documentmanagement. The auditors raised no issuesof significance.

Full external and internal audit reports areavailable on ourwebsite.

We had a strong record of ICT systems reliabilityin 2013/14. We also continued to improve ourcase-handling application by automating thetransfer of information from our onlinecomplaint form into our complaints database.This allows us to process these complaintsmoreefficiently. To further our goal of becoming apaperless office, we carried out a scanning piloton part of our business andwill review thefindings in summer 2014.We also installeda SharePoint database, in preparation forintroducing an electronic recordsmanagementsystem.We developed a Business ClassificationScheme for documents and expect themove tothe database to be completed by December 2014.These initiatives are designed to improve ourefficiency bymaking it easier to access andshare documents.

PAGE 43

Corporate performance

Our peopleWe review our learning and developmentrequirements and deliver training programmesand development opportunities on a rolling basis,to ensure that our staff have the knowledge,skills, tools and support they need tomanageand deliver our service. Group training sessionsare delivered by amix of internal and externalexperts and in 2013/14, this included areas suchas capacity and consent; analysing evidence;handling freedomof information requests;and awareness and understanding ofmentalill-health.

We obtain external validation of howwe supportour staff to engage effectively with our goals andmeet our service commitments, sometimes inchallenging circumstances.We do this throughInvestors in People (IIP), which recognised us asan Investor in People inMarch 2011. The IIPcarried out their three year review inMarch 2014through an independent assessment visit andconfirmed that we continue to be recognised asan Investor in People.

We also carried out a staff survey at the end of2013/14. The results of both the survey and the IIPfindingswere generally very positive, indicatinghigh levels of job satisfaction, engagement andcommitment fromSPSO staff. In the staffsurvey in particular, staff indicated astrong sense of achievement and personalaccomplishment and felt supported by thelearning and development programmes androbust performancemanagement systems.The IIP assessment highlighted areas for us tofocus on in our continuing improvement andweare finalising actions from the staff survey.

The IIP report is on ourwebsite andwewillpublish the staff survey there in summer 2014.

Statutory reportingFreedomof Information /DataProtectionSubject AccessWe received 209 requests, review requests andappeal notifications in 2013/14. Therewere sixappeal decisions from the Scottish InformationCommissioner against our decision about theinformation to provide, and three decisions fromtheUK Information Commissioner’s Office.

Environmental and sustainabledevelopmentWepublish an annual sustainability report,monitoring carbon emissions andwastemanagement activities and in 2013/14weexceeded the targets set.


Formore information, see our website atwww.spso.org.uk/corporate-information

“SPSO staff indicateda strong sense ofachievement and personalaccomplishment andfelt supported by thelearning anddevelopmentprogrammes and robustperformancemanagementsystems.”

www.spso.org.uk/corporate-information


Summary analysis of expenditure2014 2013 2012£000s £000s £000s

Staffing costs 2,651 2,559 2,660

Property* 309 293 292

Professional** 149 138 166

Office*** 267 358 324

Total operating expenditure 3,376 3,348 3,442

Capital **** 3 62 128

Other income -154 -180 -93

Net expenditure 3,225 3,230 3,477

Staff FTE 46 47 45

* Including rent, rates, utilities, cleaning andmaintenance** Including professional adviser fees*** Including ICT, annual report and publications**** Including IT projects

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

Financial performanceWecontinued our efficiency drive this year,making a 3%decrease against the 2012/13budget. This was the final year of a three yearplanned real term reduction of 15%against thebaseline budget of 2011/12, which the ScottishParliamentary Corporate Body asked us tomake.Our budget for 2013/14was £3,207million.

Costswere reduced as a result of the revenuegenerated by our training unit and the sharedservices agreementswe have developed (weshare our Edinburgh officewith the ScottishHumanRights Commission and provideHRexpertise to Scotland’s Commissioner forChildren and Young People).

There is a summary of our 2013/14 expenditurein the table below.We publish information on ourwebsite on specific expenditure areas as requiredunder the Public Services ReformAct.Wewillpublish our full audited accounts there, whenthey have been signed off in October 2014.

http://www.spso.org.uk/annual-accounts

“I felt compelled towrite to youseparately to conveymy admiration andrespect for the extremely thoughtful,

patient and professionalway that your staffhave supportedMrC throughout his

complaints. At each and every opportunitythey took time towork out howbest tosupport his needs andwhere they couldmake reasonable adjustments for his

disability. Their skill and professionalismshone through.”

SPSO equalities adviser

“Your incredibly kind,understanding assistancetoday, does prove that the

SPSO’s statements regardingaccess for disabled people arefactual, not just lip-serviceas is so often the casewith

various companies.”

A complainant

“The SPSOdecision does not onlysupportmy complaint – it also helpsany other studentwith a disability andI am sure I can thank you from them.”

A complainant

This section explains what we did to fulfil the fiveequalities commitments in our strategic plan in2013/14. To support this work, we continued totake advice from our equalities adviser, bothwhen looking at the equality elements incomplaints we considered and to ensure thatour policies and practices comply with equalitylegislation and best practice in this area.

Living up to our equalitiescommitments1 to takeproactive steps to identify

and reducepotential barriers to ensurethat our service is accessible to all.

In 2013/14, we looked specifically at thecustomer’s journey through our process,including how theymaywant to approach us.We verified that our office is equippedwith theright tools for this, for example that it is physicallyaccessible and has induction loop facilities forpeoplewith hearing difficulties.

We always ask howpeoplewould like tocommunicatewith us. In 2013/14, wemadeadjustments for 23 peoplewho asked us to adaptour communicationswith them.Wemademostof these adaptations for peoplewith learningdifficulties –mainly dyslexia – and sight orhearing impairment. For example, wecommunicatedwith amanwith visualimpairment by phone andwhenwewrote givinghim our final decision, wemade sure the letterwas in the large print he had asked for. We alsohelped amanwho had physical difficulty inwriting tomake his complaint to us orally.Whenawoman told us that she had a disability thataffects the speed at which she absorbs andresponds to information, wemade sure thatshe had extra time to allow her to adequatelycommunicatewith us.We provided translationfacilities – both on the phone and inwriting –for peoplewho do not have English as their firstlanguage, andwe continued to translate copiesof our leaflets into other languages and toprovide information in large print.

We took part in an event organised byIndependent Living in Scotland, aimed at bringingtogether disability organisations and scrutinybodies. As a result, we added a specificperformance indicator to our 2014/15 businessplan, recognising the importance of involvingdisabilities and equality groups in ourcommunicationswork.

We are aware that few children and young peoplecomplain to us. Aswe said in our July 2013evidence to a Parliamentary Committee lookingat a possible expansion of the Children’sCommissioner’s role in relation to complaints‘It can take both confidence and experience to makea complaint about someone who has power oversome aspect of our lives and, while this is difficultfor adults, it is likely to be more difficult for theyoung.’ Wewelcomed the likelihood thatmorechildren and young peoplemay complain to theCommissioner as a result of his expanded role.

We are aware that if we are given a role incarrying out reviews of ScottishWelfare Funddecisions,many of thosewhomight contact usabout this will be particularly vulnerable. In June2014, the Scottish Government carried out anequality impact assessment in advance of theintroduction of theWelfare Funds (Scotland) Bill.In it, they noted our approach to equalitiesplanning andmonitoring aswell as theinformation and statistics from last year’s annualreport. They said that theywouldworkwith us tohighlight the needs of potential applicants as theyset up their service, to ensure that equalitiesconsiderations are taken into account in servicedesign andmonitoring arrangements. This fitswith the Ombudsman’s stated concern thatsystems fit the needs of the people using themand allow for us tomake decisions quickly.

Given the increasing reliance on online services,we continually improve ourwebsite information.In 2013/14, CrystalMark carried out anindependent evaluation of our public websiteincluding auditing our accessibility. They gave ussome helpful comments, onwhichwe acted, andwe continue to display the CrystalMark on ourwebsite.

PAGE 47

Equality and diversity

2 to identify commonequality issues(explicit and implicit)within complaintsbrought to ourofficeand feedbacklearning fromsuch complaints to allstakeholders.

We fed back key learning to stakeholdersthrough a range of tools, most prominently theOmbudsman’smonthly e-newsletter. In 2013/14,we published sectoral reports for the first time,highlighting trends and issues.

We also play a part in ensuring that, in theirpolicies and practices, organisations reflect theobligations they have under the Equality Act 2010.Equality issues and human rights issues are, ofcourse, often interlinked and during 2013/14, weidentified 24 cases in which human rights werepotentially an issue.

Matters to which we drew attention to in 2013/14included:

> a lack of awareness, understanding ormeetingof the requirements of the Adults withIncapacity (Scotland) Act, particularly in healthboards. For several years this has been, andremains, an all too frequent concern that weregularly highlight. In one example, a familyonly learned that a Certificate of Incapacity(which says that a person is not capable ofdeciding about their ownmedical treatment)was in place when they asked for a copy oftheirmother’smedical records after she diedin hospital. Staff had not discussed this withher family, or asked if any of them could legallydecidematters for theirmother.

> prisoners with less equality of access to theNHS complaints system than other NHSusers. The Ombudsman had already raisedthis issuewith the Health Committee,after which the Scottish Government wrote tohealth boards reminding them of the process.

> the use of restraints on a prisoner, escorting adisabled prisoner and prisoner diet

> failing to protect children and young peoplefrom bullying, or to provide themwithadditional support for learning

> failings in the way a prison treated childrenvisiting their father in prison.

There are further examples of some of theseissues in the case studies below.

3 to ensure thatwe informpeoplewhoaretaking forwarda complaint of their rightsandof anyavailable support, and thatweencouragepublic authorities to dothe same.

It is important that we not only tell individualswhat their rights are andwhere they can takeissues, but also those whomay represent them.Whenwe became responsible for handlingcomplaints about the ScottishWelfare Fund inApril 2013, we developed new communicationsfor advisers and independent advocates aboutour role and process. These explainedwhatpeople could expect of the new process andof us, andwhere else theymight find help if theproblemwas onewe couldn’t help with.

During the year weworked to explain our roleand provide support to various organisations andgroups that represent or help people, includingthe Children’s Commissioner, Citizens AdviceScotland, Patient Opinion (an independentfeedback platform for health service users) andRespectMe (which provides guidance to publicauthorities on anti-bullying policies, and adviceto those affected by bullying). Our customersounding board includesmembers representingadvocacy and advice organisations.

In our communications in 2013/14, we againused our decisions on complaints to point out toorganisations examples where people had notbeen given their rights. Examples include thefailure of a health board to apply the Adults withIncapacity legislation in the case of amanwithdementia, and of a college to properly advise andsupport a youngmanwith learning support needs.


4 to ensure thatweplay ourpart in ensuringthat serviceprovidersunderstand theirduties to promoteequalitywithin theircomplaints handlingprocedures.

When developing standardised complaintshandling procedures, we helped organisationsunderstand how tomeet their equality obligationsby building in fair and equal treatment from thestart. Themodel CHPs require organisations totake their equalities obligations into account,especially in pointing out the need tomakereasonable adjustments where necessary.

Now that themodel CHPs have been rolled outacross the public sector, themain way in whichwemeet this obligation is through ongoingdiscussions with and support for publicorganisations through the complaints handlersnetworks. Guidance3 on our Valuing Complaintswebsite explains some of the implications of theEquality Act for the public sector, particularly interms of fair and equal treatment in complaintsprocesses.

5 tomonitor thediversity of ourworkforceandsupply chain and takepositive stepswhereunder-representationexists.

We are committed to supporting the diversityof our workforce. Althoughwe are a smallemployer with a low staff turnover, we ensurethat in all recruitment, selection and developmentprocesses, individuals are selected, developedand promoted on the basis of their abilities alone.We regularlymonitor the diversity of ourworkforce and positively value the differentperspectives and skills of all staff andmake fulluse of these in our work. The staff survey carriedout in 2014 indicates that individual differencesare positively supported and respected and thatopportunities for development are fairlymanaged.We ensure that our procurement processesare open and transparent andwe require anypotential suppliers or providers to demonstratethe same level of rigour as we do in theirapproach to diversity.


3 “Fair and Equal: How does the Equality Act 2010 affect complaints handling in Scotland?”

Here we have focused on the equality/human rights-related issue, and somay not refer toall the issues that were in the original complaint.

A prisoner said that he was placed under restraint with a body belt. He said that he washeld this way formore than 12 hours without approval from Scottish Ministers, and thatduring that time staff did not monitor him properly and he was denied access to toilet andwater breaks. The records showed that he was held for longer than he should have beenwithout approval, and there was no evidence that he was continuously monitored duringsome of that time. This is against prison rules. The records also showed that he was givena drink and toilet access only once, which we found unacceptable.

The prison service had already reviewed their process for restraining prisoners, and hadreminded staff theymust get permission to restrain someone for that length of time.We said that they should also apologise to the prisoner, and tell staff that full writtenrecordsmust be kept of the time in restraints; and that during that time they shouldregularly offer access to water and a toilet.

Case 201300592

Restraint of prisoner

Case Studies

http://www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk/news/fair-and-equal-how-does-the-equality-act-2010-effect-complaints-handling-in-scotland/

Amanwho uses amobility aid and has a heart condition was escorted from prison to court.He said that, despite his disability, he was handcuffed in an inappropriate way. The escortservice agreed that they should have risk-assessed this, but could not be certain whetherhe had been handcuffed in the way he described. They said they would develop guidancefor staff on how to deal with this in future. We could not find out exactly what happened, butwe upheld the complaint, as staff did not record whether they hadmade a risk assessmentto show that he had been safely and securely escorted. We recommended that theyconsider recording the handcuffing style used in future and let us see a copy of theirnew guidance.

Case 201201756

Prisoner escort

Awoman complained that an organisation referred to her asmale in their records, afterthey had agreed to refer to her as female. She said this was a hate incident. We lookedat the documents, and found that she was referred to asmale in a note on the file.The organisation had agreed to refer to her as female before the note wasmade, and,therefore, should have done so. We said that they shouldmake sure that staff know thattheymust refer to transgender customers appropriately, and tell us what learningthey’ve taken from this complaint and how they have passed this on to staff.

Case 201302903

Gender referencing


A child was exhibiting behaviours that suggested theymight have Asperger's syndrome.After an incident in school, the child was referred to an additional needs tribunal. Thetribunal said that the council had notmade reasonable adjustments under the EqualityAct. The child’s father then asked for a coordinated support plan, but this tookmore thaneight months to produce. He complained to us that the council did not apply policy andprocedures tomeet his child’s additional support needs.

The guidelines say that a support plan should be provided in four weeks, so the councilhad clearly taken far too long to provide this at what was a particularly important time inthe child's education. We said that they should apologise to the family and show us thatstaff have been reminded about what they should do when a plan is requested.

Case 201205207

Additional support needs in school

Awoman had power of attorney tomake decisions for her late brother, who had profoundlearning and communication difficulties. He was admitted to hospital, where he died threedays later from a blood infection. The woman told us that hospital staff did not discuss hiscare and treatment with her. She said that when her brother deteriorated, she could haveprovided important information about his normal condition, which could have informedhow he was treated. The board apologised that staff did not act on changes in her brother'smedical condition but said this was not due to his learning disabilities.

The board have a good best practice guide in line with the principles of the Adults withIncapacity Act (Scotland) Act 2000, but it was not followed in this case. It says that as wellas the views of the individual, staff should as far as possible take account of the views offamily and carers. The womanwas not involved in the decision-making process and, moreimportantly, her information about her brother’s deterioration was not taken seriously.We said that the board should apologise to her, remind staff of the best practice guidanceandmake sure it is used for relevant patients.

Case 201304515

Welfare power of attorney


A student has a developmental disorder and behavioural symptoms, and was unhappywith the way his college treated him. He had withdrawn from his first course, afterwhich he was assessed and told that he would benefit from learning support. He wasencouraged to access this support for his next course, but did not, and again withdrewbefore completing it. He enrolled for a third course but had to withdraw formedicalreasons, and applied for it again the next year. At this point he was told he had tocomplete an extramodule first, to show he could commit to a full course.

Our equalities adviser said that the college didn’t do enough to support him. Therewas nothing to show that they provided guidance, or talked to him about why he waswithdrawing from courses, his personal circumstances or what withdrawal mightmeanfor any new applications. We thought they had not taken all his circumstances into account.We also found that saying he had to complete an extramodule before he could accessthe course was inappropriate. We said that the college should reconsider the student’sapplication, and review their policies tomake it clear to staff when they should considermaking reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities. We also said that theyshouldmake a record of discussions between students and staff about withdrawalfrom courses.

Case 201300085

Learning needs in college

Report fromDrTomFrawley,Chair of the SPSOAuditandAdvisory Committee

Introduction1 The Audit and Advisory Committee

(the committee) has, for the past numberof years, produced an annual report.The report’s purpose is to update theOmbudsman, and other key stakeholders,on thework programmeof the committeeduring the year, specifically articulatinghow it: discharged its responsibilities;the actions it took; and theways inwhichit has sought to add value to the governanceprocesseswithin the office of the ScottishPublic Services Ombudsman.

2 The committeemeets in accordancewithits terms of referencewhich, in turn, areinformed by thework schedule laid out inthe Scottish Government Audit CommitteeHandbook (2008).

3 The principal role of the committee is toprovide the Ombudsmanwith advice andassurance on the adequacy of internal controland riskmanagement within the SPSO,including: the framework of internal control;riskmanagement processes; and the qualityand reliability of financial reporting andrelatedmatters.

4 These issues are considered through theregular review of the riskmanagementprocesses undertaken bymanagement, inconjunctionwith consideration of theworkundertaken by internal and external auditthroughout the course of the financial year.

5 The committeemet on four occasionsduring 2013/14.

Committee structureandmembership6 The committeemembership during 2013/14

comprised three non-executive directors,these being: TomFrawley; Douglas Sinclair;andHeather Logan. In linewith ScottishGovernment best practice guidance on theoperation of audit committees, the committeeis chaired by TomFrawley, a non-executivemember. Eachmeetingwas quorate.

7 The committee’s terms of reference are keptunder regular review as guidance in the fieldof corporate governance and audit committeesis developed. A particularly useful guide forevaluating the effectiveness of the committeeis the ‘The Audit Committee Self-AssessmentChecklist’, containedwithin the ScottishGovernment Audit CommitteeHandbookreferred to above.

Attendees8 The following people also attendedmeetings

during the year: Patricia Fraser, ExternalAuditor, Audit Scotland; NickMcDonald,Internal Auditor, Scottish Legal Aid Board(SLAB); JimMartin, Ombudsman; NikiMaclean,SPSODirector (Secretary); EmmaGray, SPSOHead of Policy and External Communications;PaulMcFadden, SPSOHead of ComplaintsStandards; Fiona Paterson, PA to Ombudsman(Minutes); Rachel Hall, SPSOExecutiveCasework Officer; andDavid Thomas,Independent Service Delivery Reviewer.

9 The committee routinely receives oral reportsfrom representatives of the external andinternal auditors on their work programmes,supplemented by formal audit reports atappropriate junctures during the year.

Governance and accountability

Thework of the committee10 The committee considered the following range

of issues, summarising some of the keyaspects of its duties deriving from its terms ofreference: internal audit; external audit; riskmanagement; and internal control.

11 Specific reviews involved evaluating, andadvising on, the following issues, through aseries of recurring and specific items dealtwith atmeetings:> the accounts for the year just finished priorto their finalisation and submission for audit

> the content of the Governance Statementfor the year, presented alongside thefinalised accounts

> internal audit’s finalised periodic workplan for the financial year

> internal audit opinion for the financialyear just finished

> the internal audit strategy and the periodicwork plan for the financial year

> emerging findings from internal auditengagements

> the emerging external audit opinion forthe financial year just finished and advisingthe Accountable Officer on signing theaccounts and the Governance Statement

> the external auditor’s report for theprevious year, any emerging findings fromthe current interim/in-year work ofexternal audit, and external audit’sapproach to their work

> any residual actions arising from theprevious year’s work of both internal andexternal audit

> re-visiting emerging findings from auditorsand review actions.

12 The committee also reviewed arrangementsmade bymanagement in relation to riskmanagement, including how ongoing risksare identified, assessed,monitored,managedand reviewed.

13 The committee regularly reviews RiskRegisters prepared by the SPSO. In relationto strategic processes for risk, control andgovernance, the committee, in the course ofits work, aimed to secure assurances:

> that the riskmanagement culturewas appropriate

> that there was a comprehensive processfor identifying and evaluating risk, and forreviewing what levels of risk were tolerable

> that the Risk Register was an appropriatereflection of the risks facing the SPSO

> thatmanagement had an appropriate viewof how effective internal control was

> that riskmanagement was carried outin a way that really benefited theorganisation and added value

> that the organisation as a whole was awareof the importance of riskmanagement andrisk priorities

> that the system of internal control waseffective

> that the Accountable Officer’s annualGovernance Statement wasmeaningful,and underpinned by credible evidence.

Audit engagementsExternal audit

14 The committee found the proactive approachadopted by Audit Scotland in planning for theexternal audit to bemost helpful. This processwas beneficial in that it succinctly scoped theambit of the audit, having regard for: theorganisationally specific risks and prioritiesfacing SPSO; the national risks pertinent tothe SPSO’s local operating environment;the impact of changing international auditingand accounting standards; the responsibilitiesof external audit under the terms of AuditScotland’s Code of Audit Practice; and issuesbrought forward fromprevious audit reports.

15 The outcome of the external auditengagement for the year 2013–14was anunqualified certificate fromAudit Scotland.

16 In the opinion of the external auditor, in allmaterial respects, expenditure and incomehad been applied for the purposes intended bythe Parliament and the financial transactionsconform to the authorities which govern them.The external auditor further noted that theyhad no observations tomake on the financialstatements.


PAGE 53

Internal audit17 Complementing the important role of external

audit, internal audit provides the committeewith objective assurance that the SPSO’scontrol frameworks are operating effectively.Effective control systems are the foundationof effective riskmanagement arrangementsand, in receiving and deliberating on thereports of internal audit, a critical aspectof the committee’s accountability role isdischarged. During 2013–14, the internalauditors, SLAB, undertook reviews ofinformation systems installation; HR, payrolland absencemanagement; and documentmanagement. The overall opinion reachedby internal audit in all audits was that ofsatisfactory assurance. The committee looksforward to receiving thework being conductedinto procurement arrangements in SPSO,in due course.

18 The internal audit’s Annual AssuranceReport provided the Ombudsmanwith a‘satisfactory’ level of assurance, based onthe conclusions of their various engagementsduring the course of 2013-14.

Commentary19 During the course of the year, the committee

took assurance from the fact that no significantareas of concern arose in the course of thesevarious audit engagements that remainedunaddressed or unresolved.Moreover, neitherauditor at any time has indicated any area ofparticular concern that should be brought tothe committee’s attention.

20 The committeewas also informed that thenecessary co-operation had been receivedfrom the SPSO’smanagement and staff.The committee further acknowledges thesteps being taken bymanagement and staff toimplement recommendations resulting fromthe various audit engagements.

21 The committee at all times sought to providea forum for focused debate, involving keyinternal and external stakeholders, with theultimate aim of providing assurances to theAccountable Officer on the adequacy of

internal control and riskmanagementwithinthe SPSO, including: the framework of internalcontrol; riskmanagement processes; and thequality and reliability of financial reporting andrelatedmatters.

22 The committee believes it has effectivelydischarged its functions in this regard, usingthe following sources of evidence: terms ofreference informed by best practice guidancein the field of public sector corporategovernance; a series of regularmeetingsconsidering all of thematters noted above; andmeeting, on a continuous basis, with seniormanagement to discussmatters ofmutualinterest, whilst taking assurance from theopinions expressed by the auditors, bothinternal and external. Consequently, thecommittee provided assurance to theAccountable Officer, at the appropriatejuncture in the reporting cycle, that theassertionsmade in the Governance Statementweremeaningful and underpinned by a robustevidence base.

TheFuture23 The committeewill continue tomonitor

progress on all areas under its remit duringthe forthcoming year, particularly at a time ofcontinuing change for the SPSO, particularlyagainst the context of extensions tojurisdiction. The committee believes the SPSOiswell positioned to respond towhateveropportunities or challenges itmeets, given thehigh standards of performance that have beenevidenced in the course of the last year, acrossa number of areas, as highlighted in theengagements of both internal and externalaudit.

24 The committeewill continue tomonitor theprogress of the SPSO and ensure that thelevels of attainment evidenced in the course ofthe year aremaintained, enhanced and refined.

25 The committeewould like to thank the externaland internal auditors and themanagementand staff of the SPSOwho facilitated its workduring the year, in particular the excellentadministrative support provided.


PAGE 54

Report fromDavid Thomas,Independent ServiceDeliveryReviewer

SPSO set a precedent for public sector ombudsman schemes in 2007 by creating external arrangementsfor the review of service delivery complaints, so the process is nowwell-established.

During the year to 31March 2014, I dealt with service delivery complaints in eight cases. This is a reductionof about one third on the previous year, and represents less than 0.2% of the cases handled by SPSO. In allof the cases, the Ombudsman and his staff providedmewith all of the information that I required. Besideslooking at the specific service delivery concerns raisedwithme, I also carefully reviewed thewhole of thecase files in question.

Most of thosewho referred service delivery complaints tome found it difficult to distinguish their viewof themerits of their complaint against the public body (which is not amatter forme) from their viewof theway inwhich SPSOhandled the case. Somewho complained had unrealistic expectations. There arelegal limits to SPSO’s powers, which it cannot exceed. And it is for SPSO, and not the complainant, to directthe course of the investigation – not least to ensure impartiality.

In four of the cases that I considered, I did not uphold any part of the service delivery complaint. I wassatisfied that SPSOhad dealt with these cases effectively, efficiently and fairly.

In the other four cases that I considered, I upheld part of the service delivery complaint – because therehad been a handling error in the case itself or the service delivery complaint, a lack of clarity, aminor delayor aminor procedural error. In two of the four, the shortcomingswere veryminor. In the other two, theshortcomings did not have anymaterial effect on the outcome of the case, but indicated areaswhere SPSOmight consider process improvements.

All the cases turned on their own facts, but areaswhere SPSOmaywish to keep its processes underreview include:

> ensuring time limits for complainants always have regard to the actual circumstances of the caseand the particular complainant

> giving a final warning before closing a case because of lack of cooperation by the complainant; and

> being clear about whether or not SPSO could or would require the public body to pay compensation.

SPSO reacted positively tomy conclusions in all four of these cases and apologised to the complainantsconcerned.


Complaints about SPSOPeople can complain, through our customer service complaints scheme, about the servicewe have delivered.Although the law doesn’t say that we have to do this, we decided to put a process in place. It has two internalstages, and complainants can ask for a final external review by our independent service delivery reviewer (ISDR).The ISDR’s 2013/14 report is below, aswell as statistics about these complaints, what we didwith themandwhat we learned from them.

Using complaints to improve qualityWe take complaints about our service very seriouslyand use themas a tool for ensuring the quality andconsistency of ourwork. These complaints link to ourservice standards, and our findings from them feed intoour quality assurance process and the discussionsof our seniormanagement teamand internal serviceimprovement forum.

In 2013/14, we changed howwe record complaints aboutour service, to bring ourselves into line with what we askother organisations to do under themodel complaintshandling procedure.We publish reports on our websiteabout these complaints and the actions we have taken inresponse to any failings they identify. The reports providestatistics showing the volumes and types of complaints,their outcomes and key performance details, includingthe time taken and the stage at which complaintswere resolved. They also contain a full list ofrecommendations and actions we have taken.

In addition to putting things right for our customerswherepossible, we always seek to learn lessons fromany servicefailures and address any systemic issues thatmay beidentified.

In the course of reviewing service complaints, individualinstances of service failure are highlighted to our seniormanagement team,where necessary, and to the relevantstaff andmanagers involved, where appropriate. Asummary report of complaints is provided to our seniormanagement team, our service improvement groupand our Audit and Advisory Committee each quarter.These are analysed for trend information to ensureweidentify areaswhere our service could improve andtake appropriate action.

In all caseswhere our servicewas not up to thestandards expected, we apologised to the complainantand, where possible, took action to help ensure this didnot happen again.

Keypoints> We received 57 service complaints in 2013/14,

representing 1.2% of our caseload

> This was an increase of 27%on the previous yearwhenwe received 45 complaints, andwas largely dueto the greater focus on recording complaints at thefirst stage of our process

> Wedealt with 59 complaints (this includes somecarried forward from the previous year) and upheld29%.Ninewere fully upheld, eight were someupheld, fourwerewithdrawn and 38were not upheld.

> Wedealt withmore cases (28%) at the first stageof our process, so therewas a drop in the numberwe dealt with at the second stage (down 15%) andthe number reviewed by the ISDR (down 36%).This suggests thatmore service complaints are beingresolved quicker and closer to the point of servicedelivery comparedwith previous years, reflectingour focus on seeking to resolve complaints as earlyas possible. The reduction in cases to the ISDR alsosuggests that, overall, customers aremore satisfiedwith our response to their complaints than theywerein previous years.

> Average timescales for stage 1 and stage 2complaints were 7 and 19working days respectively.We responded to 51%of complaints at stage 1 and69%at stage 2within our target timescales of 5 and20working days respectively. The time taken reflectsthe fact that in some caseswe had difficulty obtaininginformation fromor clarifying the issuewith theperson. Our revised process also focused on resolvingcomplaints at as early a stage in the process aspossible.We continue towork to increase theproportion of caseswherewemeet our targets.


PAGE 56

Complaints determined about SPSO2013–14

SDC TYPE FULLY UPHELD SOME UPHELD NOT UPHELD COMPLAINTWITHDRAWN TOTAL

Stage 1 Officer /Manager 6 1 27 3 37

Stage 2 SeniorManagement 3 7 11 1 22

Total 9 12 42 4 59

Stage 3 Cases to ISDR 0 4 4 0 8

The table below shows a breakdown of closed complaints by stage and outcome. Each complaint contains a number of individualaspects of complaint so the decision outlined represents an aggregate of the outcome of these.

Allcasesdeterm

ined

2013/2014

Casetype

Stage

OutcomeGroup

Further

Health

Housing

Local

Scottish

Water

Other

Total

&Higher

Associations

Governm

ent

Governm

ent

Education

andDevolved

Adm

inistration

Enquiry

Advice&signposting

Enquiry

011

422

12

343

Outofjurisdiction

00

00

00

320

320

Totalenquiries

011

422

12

323

363

Com

plaint

Advice

Notdulymadeorwithdraw

n31

331

76328

9347

7913

Outofjurisdiction(discretionary)

025

556

193

0108

Outofjurisdiction(non-discretionary)

1219

1242

280

10123

Outcomenotachievable

566

24129

3725

0286

Premature

23297

161

659

130

108

61,384

Resolved

02

36

40

015

Total

71740

281

1,220

311

183

232,829

EarlyResolution1


n3

496

3616

30

113

Outofjurisdiction(discretionary)

226

457

97

0105

Outofjurisdiction(non-discretionary)

515

17110

415

0193

Outcomenotachievable

137

740

105

0100

Premature

453

233

109

0111

Resolved

318

318

912

063

Total

18198

39294

9541

0685

EarlyResolution2

Fullyupheld

317

431

257

087

Som

eupheld

14

625

66

048

Notupheld

942

1250

6411

0188


n0

70

12

10

11

Resolved

00

04

08

012

Total

1370

22111

9733

0346

Investigation1

Fullyupheld

473

320

519

0124

Som

eupheld

182

939

413

0148

Notupheld

4115

560

1021

0215


n0

71

21

11

13

Resolved

01

01

11

04

Total

9278

18122

2155

1504

Investigation2

Fullyupheld

027

00

12

030

Som

eupheld

011

00

20

013

Notupheld

00

00

10

01

Total

038

00

42

044

Totalcom

plaints

111

1,324

360

1,747

528

314

244,408

Totalcontacts

111

1,335

364

1,769

529

316

347

4,771

Statistics

Statistics

Enquiries signposted by SPSOadvice team2012/13 and 2013/142012/13 2013/14

Association of British Travel Agents 2 0

Age Concern Helpline 2 1

Audit Scotland 2 3

Bus Passengers Platform 0 1

Care Inspectorate 6 3

Citizens Advice Bureau 47 59

Civil Aviation Authority 1 0

Commission for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland 0 3

Consumer Direct 9 1

Dental Complaints Service 2 0

DrinkingWater Quality Regulator 0 1

Financial Ombudsman Service 115 47

Information Commissioner Office Scotland 13 15

Law Society of Scotland 0 2

Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator 1 6

Ombudsman Services: Communications 20 15

Ombudsman Services: Energy 18 22

Ombudsman Services: Pensions 5 3

Ombudsman Services: Property 8 6

Other 59 35

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman 33 24

Passenger Focus 0 1

Planning Aid for Scotland 2 2

Police Investigations &Review Commissioner 13 12

Post Office / Royal Mail 1 0

Private Rented Housing Panel 11 8

Public Concern atWork 3 5

Public Services Ombudsman forWales 1 0

Public Standards Commissioner for Scotland 7 1

Referred to Employer / HumanResources 18 11

Referred to Legal Advice 26 10

Samaritans 1 1

Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People 0 1

Scottish Information Commissioner 3 0

Scottish Legal Aid Board 0 1

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission 10 6

Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner 0 1

Scottish Traffic Commissioner 1 0

Shelter Housing Advice Line 3 12

Standards Commission for Scotland 1 0

Telecommunications Ombudsman 3 0

The Office of the First Minister 1 0

Water Industry Commission for Scotland 6 1

Total 454 320

SPSO4 Melville StreetEdinburghEH3 7NS

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

spso annual report 2013-14

Documents

public purse

public andothers

public authoritiesto

public serviceimprovement

scottish public sector

complaints standards

service users

impactstrategic objective