Wednesday 21 October: Complaint form offline

The supplier of our case management system has confirmed that they are experiencing a significant technical issue.

At present, we have no access to the case management system and we are currently unable to provide updates on existing cases.

We are planning on the basis that this could continue for a period of time including for the remainder of this week.

If you would like to check if your complaint is ready for the SPSO or enquire about making a new complaint, please complete our Complaint Checker.  

Please be assured we are doing all we can and will provide updates on our website. 

For an all service update: Service update | SPSO

Decision Report 201301174

  • Case ref:
    201301174
  • Date:
    October 2014
  • Body:
    Transport Scotland
  • Sector:
    Scottish Government and Devolved Administration
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    policy/administration

Summary

Mr C complained that a reference in a Transport Scotland document to an external agency’s guidance was misleading. Transport Scotland had developed noise level standards for assessing whether properties near a railway line would qualify for noise mitigation, and a document about this had been issued on their behalf in which this reference was made. In responding to Mr C’s complaint, Transport Scotland explained that the agency's guidance was not exhaustive and was open to interpretation. However, Mr C told us that his complaint centred around the way Transport Scotland referred to the guidance, not the status of the guidance itself.

We reviewed the document and the reference that was the subject of Mr C’s complaint. We considered that Transport Scotland's reference did not make it clear enough that they were referring to the external agency's guidance as a whole, as opposed to this being an actual, standalone guideline from them. However, although we took this into account, there was no evidence to indicate that this specific reference was linked to their development of the noise criteria. After the disputed reference, the document went on to explain that the noise criteria were principally based on separate considerations and so we did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Updated: March 13, 2018