Monday 19 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 201909959

  • Case ref:
    201909959
  • Date:
    February 2022
  • Body:
    Aberdeenshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Policy / administration

Summary

C complained that the council failed to properly administer a grants administration process. C also complained that the council failed to handle their complaint properly, by appointing an individual who was directly involved in the complaint as the complaints officer.

The council said that C had previously been made a grant offer, which had been extended. They had then been offered a further extension, but C had not felt able to accept this. We found that the council had followed its procedures correctly. The decision on C's grant had been made by an officer operating under delegated authority. This was in line with the terms of reference for the project board which administered the grants. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

In relation to complaints handling, the council said that they were entitled to appoint the investigating officer for C's complaint. In their view, the officer appointed had the greatest knowledge of the issues under investigation. We found that the council's explanation that the investigating officer was not named in C's complaint was irrelevant. The investigating officer was directly involved in the decision C was complaining about. C had raised this with the council, but it had not been addressed. We found that C's complaint had been handled unreasonably and upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to C for appointing an investigating officer with a conflict of interest. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
  • Apologise to C for failing to respond appropriately to their concerns about the appointment of the investigating officer. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

  • The council ensure that investigating officers do not have a conflict of interest over the complaint they are investigating.
  • The council should ensure that when considering concerns about an investigating officer, they do so in line with the appropriate complaints handling guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Updated: February 16, 2022