- Next step in making a complaint to the SPSO
When making a complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) it is important
that the complainant understands the role of the SPSO, the SPSO act 2002 and the provisions
made to protect the complainant from defamation, what constitutes "Maladministration" and
how to submit a complaint. Your complaint can be strengthened by using this knowledge.
Follow the link below to the steps to making a complaint to the Ombudsman
Link to Step 1: The role of the SPSO
Disclaimer
| No Justice Not Transparent |
| Not Accountable Not Effective |
spso Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Watch - Home Page
Campaigning for a more accountable & effective Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
Campaigning for a more accountable & effective Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
There have been
Background to site
This site has been designed by a member of the public to assist new complainants to the
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso) by giving easy access to information collated
from diverse official sources and to highlight how the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman (SPSO) have been protecting the authorities by rejecting valid and irrefutable
complaints of maladministration submitted by the public. This site also shows the public
how they can take action to publicise how they were treated by the spso and how they can
work together to campaign to get a more effective and accountable Scottish Ombudsman.
The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), in February 2008, published their 2007
customer satisfaction survey which supports everything this site has been saying.
Use this link to download a copy of the ORC International report titled “Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman Complaint Satisfaction Survey 2007” dated February 2008 link.
This official SPSO report clearly demonstrates the failings of the
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman service and the levels of
DISSATISFACTION of the public who use this publicly funded service.
A total of 62% of the respondents felt the SPSO had not met their
original expectations.
The most damming section in the report is where the respondents were asked to comment
about “what areas work well or need to be improved”.
81% of the respondent’s comments fell into the following categories and were highly
critical of the service provided by the SPSO.
This site has been designed by a member of the public to assist new complainants to the
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso) by giving easy access to information collated
from diverse official sources and to highlight how the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman (SPSO) have been protecting the authorities by rejecting valid and irrefutable
complaints of maladministration submitted by the public. This site also shows the public
how they can take action to publicise how they were treated by the spso and how they can
work together to campaign to get a more effective and accountable Scottish Ombudsman.
The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), in February 2008, published their 2007
customer satisfaction survey which supports everything this site has been saying.
Use this link to download a copy of the ORC International report titled “Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman Complaint Satisfaction Survey 2007” dated February 2008 link.
This official SPSO report clearly demonstrates the failings of the
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman service and the levels of
DISSATISFACTION of the public who use this publicly funded service.
A total of 62% of the respondents felt the SPSO had not met their
original expectations.
The most damming section in the report is where the respondents were asked to comment
about “what areas work well or need to be improved”.
81% of the respondent’s comments fell into the following categories and were highly
critical of the service provided by the SPSO.
Quotes from members of the public who have used the site:
1. Agree, Agree, Agree. Just to let you know I concur with your views.
2. I have just come across your web site and I am delighted to learn that I am not alone in having grave concerns over the manner
in which the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman operates . The contacts you give for complaining about the Ombudsman are
very much appreciated and I shall certainly use them . Thanks for the interest you have shown in justice in our country by setting
up your website.
3. I am currently drafting a complaint regarding the findings of the SPSO into a complaint I had. Despite the fact the council
admitted the allegation, the SPSO failed to uphold the complaint. Beggers belief!
4. This is to confirm that following a protracted but unsuccessful submission relating to XXX Council, I have expressed my dis-
satisfaction to the SPSO on their handling of the above noted complaint. I am now in the process of approaching the
recommended parties as listed on your website to further this matter. Should there be anything you require in order to progress
this registration of my complaint, please do not hesitate to contact me. In closing may I congratulate you on an excellent website.
5. And I thought I was the only one who had trouble with the Ombudsman! Thank you for enlightening me - it gives me a lot of
hope and I support you 100 per cent!
6. I have advanced breast cancer, which was misdiagnosed by four years. No amount of effort is going to get the SPSO to uphold
my case. Believe me, I’ve tried. The complaints system has failed me and by the sounds of it, many others. My report was not
worth the paper it was written on. How this situation has been allowed to go on for so long is beyond belief. Action is needed
urgently. Please Scottish Parliament can you help the Scottish people to get an independent, competent and
fair complaints system? We deserve it!
7. The SPSO writes to me: "At this point it may be helpful to explain that the subjects to be investigated are decided by
this office rather than by complainants. This applies also to the evidence that is considered necessary for the
investigation and to the details that are included in the report." The implications of this are obvious. Lives will continue to
be at risk until MSPs find the courage to tackle this dreadful outfit.
8. Re. courage of MSPs, what about the courage of the Press? Where are the investigative journalists who could have a field day.
9. Like many others I to have fallen victim of the Scottish Ombudsman. My own solicitor told me that I had a very good case for
maladministration against a local council. I submitted the evidence and you know the rest - they failed to investigate. The only
course of action I now have is to write to MSP John Swinney and other MSPs. I know nothing will be done but at least I will have the
satisfaction of letting them know how a local authority treats a disabled man in the 21st century in Scotland - and gets away with it!
I'm not looking for sympathy, just fair play, which I simply did not get from the Scottish Ombudsman. The sooner they
close this down the better for Scotland.
How to contact the site
Since starting the Scottish Ombudsman Watch web site I have had a number of members of the public
contact the site advising that they too had experienced similar treatment by Professor Brown and the
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
The members of public who have contacted the site are all campaigning to highlight the injustices of the
current service provided by the SPSO.
The Scottish Ombudsman Watch site acts as a network for campaigners to be updated on any new
initiatives that are in progress and then they can decide if they want to support them. The campaigns are
more effective if there are a lot of people complaining....so if the SPSO has failed you, then join the campaign
today.
All details of the members of public who contact the site are kept strictly confidential and any document sent
will not be disclosed without the owners permission.
Occasionally I send out email updates on the new initiatives. The email recipients are blind copied to protect
the identities of the Scottish Ombudsman Watch Supporters.
If you would like to join the campaign to get an accountable and effective Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman then please email me at
Email address: info@scottishombudsmanwatch.org
1. Agree, Agree, Agree. Just to let you know I concur with your views.
2. I have just come across your web site and I am delighted to learn that I am not alone in having grave concerns over the manner
in which the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman operates . The contacts you give for complaining about the Ombudsman are
very much appreciated and I shall certainly use them . Thanks for the interest you have shown in justice in our country by setting
up your website.
3. I am currently drafting a complaint regarding the findings of the SPSO into a complaint I had. Despite the fact the council
admitted the allegation, the SPSO failed to uphold the complaint. Beggers belief!
4. This is to confirm that following a protracted but unsuccessful submission relating to XXX Council, I have expressed my dis-
satisfaction to the SPSO on their handling of the above noted complaint. I am now in the process of approaching the
recommended parties as listed on your website to further this matter. Should there be anything you require in order to progress
this registration of my complaint, please do not hesitate to contact me. In closing may I congratulate you on an excellent website.
5. And I thought I was the only one who had trouble with the Ombudsman! Thank you for enlightening me - it gives me a lot of
hope and I support you 100 per cent!
6. I have advanced breast cancer, which was misdiagnosed by four years. No amount of effort is going to get the SPSO to uphold
my case. Believe me, I’ve tried. The complaints system has failed me and by the sounds of it, many others. My report was not
worth the paper it was written on. How this situation has been allowed to go on for so long is beyond belief. Action is needed
urgently. Please Scottish Parliament can you help the Scottish people to get an independent, competent and
fair complaints system? We deserve it!
7. The SPSO writes to me: "At this point it may be helpful to explain that the subjects to be investigated are decided by
this office rather than by complainants. This applies also to the evidence that is considered necessary for the
investigation and to the details that are included in the report." The implications of this are obvious. Lives will continue to
be at risk until MSPs find the courage to tackle this dreadful outfit.
8. Re. courage of MSPs, what about the courage of the Press? Where are the investigative journalists who could have a field day.
9. Like many others I to have fallen victim of the Scottish Ombudsman. My own solicitor told me that I had a very good case for
maladministration against a local council. I submitted the evidence and you know the rest - they failed to investigate. The only
course of action I now have is to write to MSP John Swinney and other MSPs. I know nothing will be done but at least I will have the
satisfaction of letting them know how a local authority treats a disabled man in the 21st century in Scotland - and gets away with it!
I'm not looking for sympathy, just fair play, which I simply did not get from the Scottish Ombudsman. The sooner they
close this down the better for Scotland.
How to contact the site
Since starting the Scottish Ombudsman Watch web site I have had a number of members of the public
contact the site advising that they too had experienced similar treatment by Professor Brown and the
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
The members of public who have contacted the site are all campaigning to highlight the injustices of the
current service provided by the SPSO.
The Scottish Ombudsman Watch site acts as a network for campaigners to be updated on any new
initiatives that are in progress and then they can decide if they want to support them. The campaigns are
more effective if there are a lot of people complaining....so if the SPSO has failed you, then join the campaign
today.
All details of the members of public who contact the site are kept strictly confidential and any document sent
will not be disclosed without the owners permission.
Occasionally I send out email updates on the new initiatives. The email recipients are blind copied to protect
the identities of the Scottish Ombudsman Watch Supporters.
If you would like to join the campaign to get an accountable and effective Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman then please email me at
Email address: info@scottishombudsmanwatch.org
What the MSPs said about the SPSO on the 4th December 2007 - PE1076
MSPs voice concern regarding the service provided by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman during the Scottish Parliament
Public Petitions Committee debate on the petition 1076.
Mr Whittet's petition was
"Petition PE1076: Petition by D W R Whittet QPR calling for the Scottish Parliament to set up an Appeal
Tribunal to review final decisions by the Public Services Ombudsman where any complainer so requests."
and can be viewed on the web site at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/petitions/docs/PE1076.htm
The full text of Petition PE1076 detailing the extensive problems with the spso can be downloaded using this LINK
The petition was supported by 43 members of the public who had experienced similar problems with the spso.
Mr Whittet has the support of Mudro Fraser MSP who presented the issues with the spso to the petitions committee.
The debate of the petition can be viewed on the Scottish Parliament TV site LINK. (http://www.holyrood.tv/popup.asp?stream=http:
//vr-sp-archive.lbwa.verio.net/archive/petitions_041207.wmv). To view the debate about the petition move the slide bar until you
are 1 hrs 12 minutes into the debate.
The debate text can be viewed using this LINK.
This is what the MSPs said:
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): Thank you for the invitation to the committee. Mr Whittet is indeed a constituent
of mine, and his petition relates to a proposed right of appeal against decisions that are made by the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman. The substance of his complaint is not particularly relevant to the petition; his concerns are about the way in which his
case was handled by the SPSO, what he felt were administrative failures and a failure to address the basis of his complaint.
The practice of the SPSO is to issue a draft before its report is laid before Parliament, to allow comments to be made. In Mr
Whittet's case, he commented but, in his opinion, his comments were entirely ignored. The petitioner feels that a complainer has
no right to challenge a view that the ombudsman's office takes. Given what he feels are the failures in the handling of cases by the
ombudsman's office, that needs to be addressed. From my experience, Mr Whittet's views are by no means unique.
I have been contacted by several other constituents who had similar concerns about
the way in which the ombudsman handles cases.
I have raised the concerns in the Parliament, at Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time and when the current
ombudsman was reappointed earlier in the year. I know that other members have similar concerns. Since the petition was lodged,
Mr Whittet and I have been contacted by several members of the public expressing similar concerns.
Rhoda Grant MSP: If people are unhappy with the way in which the system works, the office of the ombudsman
should be reconsidered to find out where those concerns are coming from.
Nigel Don MSP: I am with Rhoda Grant—if something is wrong, it is in the ombudsman's office;
that is the bit we should fix instead of looking for a further appeal mechanism.
Murdo Fraser MSP: I have detected fairly widespread concerns about the manner in which the ombudsman's office operates in
relation to the investigation of complaints. The committee might be minded to pursue that matter further with the ombudsman's
office and with the corporate body, which would be the appropriate level of government to deal with such matters.
Rhoda Grant MSP: Does Audit Scotland have a role to play? Could Audit Scotland examine the workings
of the ombudsman's office? It might be worth writing to it to ask.
The MSPs recognised that the problem might lie with the people running the spso and not actually the
legislation that governs them. They also recognised that Audit Scotland could examine effectiveness of the
spso. The Convenor agreed to explore this suggestion to ask Audit Scotland what they could do to
investigate the problems with the spso.
The petitions committee called for written evidence to be gathered by the 8th January 2008 to allow further
consideration of the petition on the 19th February 2008. Twenty five members of the public sent in written
submissions to the petitions committee recording all of the problems they had experienced with the spso
and their suggestions for improvements to the spso service.
Mr Whittett submitted a supplementary document to the petitions committee LINK.
Mr Whittet submitted another letter to the petitions committee dated 20th January 2008 LINK in which he summaries
that most of the responses
"recount, in somewhat patronising tones, details of the present Ombudsman system which are well known by those who
have had experience of it. I do not know precisely how the questions(s) were put to the named consultees but most of
them have simply commented on the question of whither or not an Appeal Process against the current Ombudsman's
decisions should be created. In isolation, this evades the crucial question as to how to resolve the problems
encountered by me - and many others - indealings with the current Ombudsman. These included maladministration,
failure to take proper account of relevant evidence, widespread expression of evidence of opinion, loss of mail,
inordinate delay etc.
The abject failure not to include one single comment made by me on her Draft Report in the Final Report,
was particularly reprehensible. As a principle of justice my comments, as complainer, should have been
included in full and acknowledged. The adoption of such tactics concealed the true facts of the case and created
bias in favour of senior officials of Perth & Kinross Council. She (Professor Brown) has proved to be beyond reproach
and answerable to no one. The "laying" of Reports before the Scottish Parliament is but a "paper exercise". These
reports are simply placed in the library where they are seen by no one. They are certainly not debated.
Mr Whittet ended his letter with the following paragraph
"I served in tayside Police for almost 35 years, 12 years at senior supervisory level. In all my experience dealing with
innumerable crimes, minor and major, complaint etc., I never encountered such incompetence,
maladministration and dismissive treatment as that perpetrated by senior officials of Perth & Kinross
Council and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. I rest my case."
What the MSPs said about the SPSO on the 3rd October 2007
MSPs voice concern regarding the service provided by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman during the Scottish Parliament
debate on the Crerar report. I would like to thank these MSPs for voicing their concerns about the SPSO. This is what
some of the MSPs said:
Derek Brownlee (South of Scotland) (Con): In relation to the recommendations on complaints, and on the role of the Scottish
Public Sector Ombudsman in particular, a note of caution has to be struck. There is a certain logic in some of the Crerar
recommendations, but it is not obvious whether the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman, as currently constituted, is
handling its existing remit to the satisfaction of the public. Unless and until we can be clear that the SPSO is handling its
current tasks appropriately, we should be wary of extending its role.
Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): I cannot be the only constituency member who is a bit concerned about the SPSO's delivery.
Keith Brown (Ochil) (SNP): the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman—I share the concerns of Tavish Scott and others about it—
can only consider maladministration, but the public does not realise that and thinks that the body has a far wider remit, which is
why people can become frustrated. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman started off fairly well with the good intention of
drawing in more areas, such as health, but it has lost its way. I have worked with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman's
office for the past 10 years and it is not operating as people envisaged it would.
Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP):
Those two recommendations would greatly assist the public in their quest for improved public services and a reliable and robust
complaints system, and would improve belief in our public services. The quid pro quo, however, is that even greater powers would
be given to the SPSO. I am sure that many members, both past and present, have taken up cases on behalf of constituents—
there is a great deal of uncertainty among the public about the SPSO and its effectiveness.
Many people might wonder whether it is worth bothering to complain, bearing in mind the percentage of complaints that are
upheld: 1.16 per cent in 2003-04; 0.58 per cent in 2004-05; 3.13 per cent in 2005-06; and 8 per cent in 2006-07.
I for one do not believe that those figures represent a true account of legitimate complaints throughout Scotland; neither do I
believe that 100 per cent of complaints are valid. However, the poor figures to date beg the question whether it would be wise to
give the SPSO even more powers and responsibility.
Many and varied complaints were sent to Inverclyde Council and the SPSO, yet the SPSO refused to meet the complainants
or to respond to aspects of the final report, which backed up Inverclyde Council.
I have spoken to members from different parts of the country and discovered that there is a significant lack of public
confidence in the SPSO, so giving the SPSO more powers is not the correct way forward. Before there is any increase in the
powers of the SPSO, fundamental questions that I would like to be answered include: whether the SPSO should accept undated
documents; whether it should meet complainants; why so many people are deeply unhappy with the way in which the SPSO
has investigated complaints; and whether the SPSO should consider best value when considering complaints about public
services. I welcome the Crerar review, which is a useful starting point for further consultation and for improving the complaints
procedure in Scotland. However, I caution against giving the SPSO more powers.
It is imperative not only that we consider the problems that might lie ahead if we gave the SPSO greater powers, but that we ask
who would keep watch on it. If the SPSO is to be empowered in this way, we must have assurances that the organisation will
be changed and improved and that we will not have the same problems that so many people have experienced.
Indeed, Andy Kerr and Derek Brownlee have already alluded to that.
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Bruce Crawford): He makes an important point about the effectiveness of the
SPSO. A number of members, such as Christine Grahame and Stuart McMillan, raised the issue, but approached it from a different
perspective. It is clear that, whatever one's perspective, the role of the ombudsman will require to be
revisited.
The full text of the debate can be found at the Scottish Parliament web site or downloaded using this link: Scottish Parliament
debate to review the Crerar report.
There was also a public debate on the Herald newspaper web site from Scottish Ombudsman Watch supporters after the Scottish
Parliament debated the Crerar report. The debate is still open so if you feel strongly about the SPSO, then you can still post your
comments (The last comment was posted on the 20th October) . Follow this link to the Herald's web site (link) or download the
debate here
What the MSPs said about the SPSO on the 28th March 2007
MSPs voice concern regarding the service provided by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman during the Scottish Parliament
debate to re-appoint Professor Brown. This is what some of the MSPs said:
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): Is the member aware that one deficiency of the reports that are
presented to the Parliament is the lack of clarity about the internal workings of the ombudsman's office, particularly the length
of time the ombudsman can take to deal with cases?
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): Mr Scott is aware that I have raised with him and the corporate body several
concerns about the ombudsman's office's handling of complaints. I have expressed concerns about undue delays in the
preparation of cases, to which Mr Purvis referred, and weaknesses in the quality of investigations and reports. What
assurances have been sought from the ombudsman that procedures will be altered, on her reappointment, to ensure that such
failings will be prevented in the future?
John Scott (Ayr) (Con): We have received 20 complaints about the ombudsman, which have primarily been about the time
it has taken to handle complaints and the quality of the complaint handling. We thought that it was appropriate to raise those
issues with her at interview. In response, she assured us that there will be improvements. The SPCB will also regularly monitor
performance against agreed targets. I would be more than happy to lodge the resulting reports before the Parliament as we
receive them.
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):The second and more significant issue is the ethos of the Scottish public services
ombudsman's organisation. I would be much more comfortable with the work of the ombudsman's office if it focused on
delivering a much more rigorous and robust critique of the operation of public services. MSPs must be absolutely
confident that the Scottish public services ombudsman service will be robust with public organisations. I am very uneasy about
the situation at present. I hear the reassurances John Scott gave us, and I look forward with enthusiasm to ensuring that the
ombudsman addresses the issue in her second term of office. I have the feeling that she has not taken that approach in her first
term of office. She must take a much more robust approach towards public organisations in order to guarantee that
the public interest is fully and adequately served.
Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP):There are currently four problems with the ombudsman's office. First, to be fair, the
resources required to do the job, to date, have not been made available to the ombudsman. We are going some way towards
solving that problem, but I suspect that we need to go further. Secondly, the turnaround times for cases are far too long. It has
taken more than a year for the ombudsman to decide whether to investigate a case that I am dealing with. Thirdly, the variability
of the quality of the service is, frankly, not acceptable. It depends too much on which particular investigator handles the
case, rather than on overall quality control in the office.
Mr Jeremy Purvis MSP opposed the re-appointment of Professor Brown as the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
and the following MSPs abstained: Alex Fergusson and Derek Brownlee.
The full text of the debate can be found at the Scottish Parliament web site or downloaded using this link: Scottish
Parliament debate to re-appoint Professor Brown
It should be noted that the number of complaints remaining open has increased from 280/year in 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 to
920/year in 2005/2006 (more than half of all complaints submitted are still open after a year). This clearly demonstrates why the
public feel so much frustration with the delay in their complaints being investigated and this is being reflected in what the MSPs are
saying in Parliament. Justice delayed is justice denied.
There was also a public debate in the Scotsman's web site after the Scottish Parliament re-appointed Professor
Brown. Follow this link to the Scotsman's web site (link) or download the debate here
What's new on the web site
1. PLEASE SUPPORT JEANNIE ERSKINE'S BREAST CANCER PETITION
Jeannie Erskine, one of the Scottish Ombudsman Watch Supporters, has an e petition on the Prime Minister’s web site.
The petition reads
“Breast screening is only available on the NHS to women over age 50, unless referred by their GP. Women under age 50
do get breast cancer and the figure is rising. I was refused referral because I was under age 50 (actually 46 first time),
even when showing symptoms, anxiety and requests. And suffered, with advanced breast cancer and the trauma of GP
refusal to refer.”
Jeannie hoped that over 1000 people would sign her petition. When the petition closed there was 1041 signatories.
Thank you to everyone who supported this petition.
LINK to Jeannie Erskine's breast cancer petition
2. PLEASE SUPPORT TREVOR NUNN'S ENGLISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT PETITION
Trevor Nunn runs two web sites dedicated to exposing the injustices of the English Local Government Ombudsman.
Trevor and his friends have recently supported Mr Whittet's petition PE1076 to the Scottish Parliament Petitions
Committee and Jeannie Erskine's Breast cancer petition.
Trevor has now set up the following e petition to the Prime Minister regarding the English LGO.
Petition reads "The current system of administrative justice in England is causing significant injustice and hardship to
many of this country’s citizens. The current system does not embrace the principles of natural justice and it is doubtful if it
is even compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Currently the only option open to a Public Authority
or a Complainant, should they disagree with an Ombudsman’s decision, is a judicial review. That option is severely
limited in scope and in any event is well beyond the financial means of the average citizen. Introducing an Appeal
Tribunal would guarantee a much fairer system of administrative justice in England.".
I would be very grateful if all the Scottish Public who visit this site could help Trevor by supporting his e petition.
To do this click on the following link:
LINK to Trevor Nunn's E petition
or paste the following web site address into your browser
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ombudsmen
Thank you for your support. It does make a difference and means so much to the people who are raise these
petitions
3. PLEASE SUPPORT KEITH EDMUND's ENGLISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT PETITION
Keith has now set up the following e petition to the Prime Minister regarding the English LGO.
Petition reads "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to remove the absolute exemptions from the Freedom of
Information Act enjoyed by the Local Government Ombudsman under Articles 32 and 44 of the Local Government Act
1974.".
I would be very grateful if all the Scottish Public who visit this site could help Keith by supporting his e petition.
To do this click on the following link:
LINK to Keith's E petition
or paste the following web site address into your browser
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/LGOandFOI/
Thank you for your support. It does make a difference and means so much to the people who are raise these petitions.
4. See new web pages "SPSO in denial" link for details of the SPSO claim that no one complains about their decisions
and "Simple guide to FOI" link which assists you in making a valid Freedom of Information request for information from
the Authorities and/or the SPSO.
5. See new web pages "Who guards the Guards" link and "Criagforth report" link for the independent research which
shows that 52% of NHS complainants were very dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint to the SPSO and only
15% showed any satisfaction.
6. The Scottish Patients Association are also concerned about how the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman treats
NHS complaints. They are writing to the Health Minister regarding the issues their members have experienced when they
complained to the SPSO. If you have a medical complaint then it is recommended that you also contact the Scottish
Patients Association before submitting a complaint to the SPSO. The Scottish Patients Association can be contacted at
the Scottish Patients Association web site link. The Scottish Patients Association have also issued a press release
which details their objectives and contact details. The Scottish Patients Association press release can be downloaded
here (link).
7. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body have released an overview of the complaints made to them about the
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Use this link to download a copy of the overview of complaints (link)
8. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) had 919 outstanding complaints at the end of March 2007. So with
the increase in budget from the Parliament and increased number of investigators employed by the Scottish Public
Services Ombudsman, they spectacularly failed to reduce the number of outstanding complaints at year end. In fact it
went up by 20 outstanding complaints from the 899 outstanding complaints they had at March 2006. Also 33% of the
outstanding complaints were submitted more than one year ago and one even dated back to October 2002. SPSO
outstanding complaints versus date submitted at March 2007 (link)
9. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Board (SPCB) recognise and acknowledge the existence of the Scottish
Ombudsman Watch web site when they were considering the re-appointment of Professor Brown. Follow this link to the
SPCB report or download the report here
10. In 2006/2007 the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) received 42 complaints about the service they
provide, an increase of 36% over the number of complaints they received in 2005/2006
11. A supporting MSP advised that one of the recommendations from the Finance Committee “Accountability and
Governance” Report was that the new Finance Committee is to propose a committee bill to make the recommended
legislative changes to acts establishing existing Commissioners and Ombudsman to make them more accountable. As
with any bill proposed there has to be a consultation exercise and this will provide the public with an opportunity to feed in
their thoughts on how to make the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman spso more accountable. Update: The
committee bill is planned for March 2008
1. PLEASE SUPPORT JEANNIE ERSKINE'S BREAST CANCER PETITION
Jeannie Erskine, one of the Scottish Ombudsman Watch Supporters, has an e petition on the Prime Minister’s web site.
The petition reads
“Breast screening is only available on the NHS to women over age 50, unless referred by their GP. Women under age 50
do get breast cancer and the figure is rising. I was refused referral because I was under age 50 (actually 46 first time),
even when showing symptoms, anxiety and requests. And suffered, with advanced breast cancer and the trauma of GP
refusal to refer.”
Jeannie hoped that over 1000 people would sign her petition. When the petition closed there was 1041 signatories.
Thank you to everyone who supported this petition.
LINK to Jeannie Erskine's breast cancer petition
2. PLEASE SUPPORT TREVOR NUNN'S ENGLISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT PETITION
Trevor Nunn runs two web sites dedicated to exposing the injustices of the English Local Government Ombudsman.
Trevor and his friends have recently supported Mr Whittet's petition PE1076 to the Scottish Parliament Petitions
Committee and Jeannie Erskine's Breast cancer petition.
Trevor has now set up the following e petition to the Prime Minister regarding the English LGO.
Petition reads "The current system of administrative justice in England is causing significant injustice and hardship to
many of this country’s citizens. The current system does not embrace the principles of natural justice and it is doubtful if it
is even compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Currently the only option open to a Public Authority
or a Complainant, should they disagree with an Ombudsman’s decision, is a judicial review. That option is severely
limited in scope and in any event is well beyond the financial means of the average citizen. Introducing an Appeal
Tribunal would guarantee a much fairer system of administrative justice in England.".
I would be very grateful if all the Scottish Public who visit this site could help Trevor by supporting his e petition.
To do this click on the following link:
LINK to Trevor Nunn's E petition
or paste the following web site address into your browser
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ombudsmen
Thank you for your support. It does make a difference and means so much to the people who are raise these
petitions
3. PLEASE SUPPORT KEITH EDMUND's ENGLISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT PETITION
Keith has now set up the following e petition to the Prime Minister regarding the English LGO.
Petition reads "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to remove the absolute exemptions from the Freedom of
Information Act enjoyed by the Local Government Ombudsman under Articles 32 and 44 of the Local Government Act
1974.".
I would be very grateful if all the Scottish Public who visit this site could help Keith by supporting his e petition.
To do this click on the following link:
LINK to Keith's E petition
or paste the following web site address into your browser
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/LGOandFOI/
Thank you for your support. It does make a difference and means so much to the people who are raise these petitions.
4. See new web pages "SPSO in denial" link for details of the SPSO claim that no one complains about their decisions
and "Simple guide to FOI" link which assists you in making a valid Freedom of Information request for information from
the Authorities and/or the SPSO.
5. See new web pages "Who guards the Guards" link and "Criagforth report" link for the independent research which
shows that 52% of NHS complainants were very dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint to the SPSO and only
15% showed any satisfaction.
6. The Scottish Patients Association are also concerned about how the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman treats
NHS complaints. They are writing to the Health Minister regarding the issues their members have experienced when they
complained to the SPSO. If you have a medical complaint then it is recommended that you also contact the Scottish
Patients Association before submitting a complaint to the SPSO. The Scottish Patients Association can be contacted at
the Scottish Patients Association web site link. The Scottish Patients Association have also issued a press release
which details their objectives and contact details. The Scottish Patients Association press release can be downloaded
here (link).
7. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body have released an overview of the complaints made to them about the
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Use this link to download a copy of the overview of complaints (link)
8. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) had 919 outstanding complaints at the end of March 2007. So with
the increase in budget from the Parliament and increased number of investigators employed by the Scottish Public
Services Ombudsman, they spectacularly failed to reduce the number of outstanding complaints at year end. In fact it
went up by 20 outstanding complaints from the 899 outstanding complaints they had at March 2006. Also 33% of the
outstanding complaints were submitted more than one year ago and one even dated back to October 2002. SPSO
outstanding complaints versus date submitted at March 2007 (link)
9. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Board (SPCB) recognise and acknowledge the existence of the Scottish
Ombudsman Watch web site when they were considering the re-appointment of Professor Brown. Follow this link to the
SPCB report or download the report here
10. In 2006/2007 the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) received 42 complaints about the service they
provide, an increase of 36% over the number of complaints they received in 2005/2006
11. A supporting MSP advised that one of the recommendations from the Finance Committee “Accountability and
Governance” Report was that the new Finance Committee is to propose a committee bill to make the recommended
legislative changes to acts establishing existing Commissioners and Ombudsman to make them more accountable. As
with any bill proposed there has to be a consultation exercise and this will provide the public with an opportunity to feed in
their thoughts on how to make the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman spso more accountable. Update: The
committee bill is planned for March 2008
My Experience of using the SPSO
Unfortunately my experience of complaining to the Scottish Ombudsman has been that they are there to protect the
authorities from all valid and irrefutable complaints of maladministration.
The spso refused to accept any evidence which proved maladministration.
The spso claimed they could not question anything the authorities did or said even if it completely
contradicted the laws and guidelines of this land.
The concept that the Ombudsman provides an independent, impartial and transparent quasi-judicial complaints service
to the public is right. The problem however is the way the current Ombudsman rejects valid and irrefutable complaints of
maladministration with impunity.
In my case the spso gave the impression that they were investigating my complaint, then after three years of
“investigations”, they rejected my complaint as they never “formally” accepted the complaint in the first place.
After 3 years, my complaint just became one of the many complaints that were deemed not valid.
Each year the spso determine that 80+% of complaints submitted are not valid. So if the SPSO have dealt
with your case the same way as the dealt with mine then you need to take actions now.
My complaint just became one of these statistics and was never reported to Parliament as it was not "formally
investigated".
The most unjust aspect of my complaint was that after 3 years of complaining about how my complaint had been
handled by the spso, the Scottish Ombudsman forced the Council to take the enforcement action I had originally
requested 4 years earlier. The Scottish Ombudsman ruled that the Council's failure to take the correct enforcement
action was not maladministration. Surely a 4 year delay qualifies as maladministration.......not if you are the
current Ombudsman.
The spso act makes the Ombudsman's position completely independent and unaccountable to anyone including the
Ministers and MSPs. That is why the current Ombudsman is able to treat the public the way she has. This web site
was set up purely due to the injustice of the way I had been treated by the Scottish Ombudsman and the
belief that I was probably not the only one who had been treated in this manner. I was correct that I was not
alone in my experiences of the Ombudsman service. Since setting up the site I have been contacted by a significant
number of members of the public who have received similar treatment from the Scottish Ombudsman. These
members of the public have contacted their MSPs and their level of dissatisfaction with the service being
provided by the Ombudsman is being raised in the Scottish Parliament.
My complaint pales into insignificance compared to how the Ombudsman has treated people who have complained
about poor medical care from the NHS. These people are the real victims of the current complaints handling system.
The Patior web site details their experiences with complaining to the Scottish Ombudsman and you can also get a
flavour of the levels of dissatisfaction with the Ombudsman from the comments posted on the Scotsman and Herald
newspaper web sites (links to Scotsman and Herald articles can be found on this web page at the end of the MSPs
comments sections)
The spso are the Guardians of the complaints system in Scotland. They tell everyone how to run a model
complaints system.
One interesting fact about the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is they do not accept any complaints about
their own performance, do not formally investigate these complaints and do not report these complaints
publicly or to the Scottish Parliament.
How can an organisation tell someone how to run a model complaints system when they do not accept any
complaints or opportunities to improve themselves?
Why does the Scottish Parliament allow this situation to exist?
The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has now been in operation for 5 years. In these 5 years the SPSO has only
ever been subjected to an annual financial audit from Audit Scotland. No other audits have ever been performed to
determine if the current Ombudsman is providing the service to the public that the Parliament envisaged or the quasi
judicial service that Professor Brown claims she is providing.
The Ministers and MSPs cannot question or hold the Scottish Ombudsman to account. The only action the Ministers and
MSPs can take is to ask Audit Scotland to perform an "economy, efficiency and effectiveness examination
audit" with particular focus on investigating all complaints about the service provided by the SPSO including
interviews with the people who have submitted these complaints (The spso do not accept that anyone complains about
their decisions see web page "SPSO in denial"!).
There are thousands of members of the public who have suffered a miscarriage of administrative justice at
the hands of the SPSO over the last five years of it’s existence. If you are one of them then join the campaign
to get the Scottish Parliament to change the way the current SPSO operates by following the steps detailed
below:
The important message from this website is:
1. the public should continue to submit complaints about the authorities to the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman (spso)
2. if the Ombudsman rejects a valid complaint, then the public should complain about how their complaint
has been handled, firstly to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. See web page "defamation" as
regards to the protection from defamation afforded by the Act of Parliament when complaining to the
Scottish Ombudsman. Once you have documented your complaint about the service provided by the
Scottish Ombudsman and sent it to the SPSO, you can simply copy this complaint to the MSPs and then
refer to it.
3. complain to your constituency MSP, your seven regional MSPs (use this link to find your regional MSPs),
John Swinney MSP Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mr Alex Ferguson MSP Presiding Officer for the Scottish
Parliament, and Mr Mike Pringle MSP who is responsible for the Ombudsman. When complaining to the
MSPs you should also ask the MSPs and Ministers to initiate an Audit Scotland examination audit into
"economy, efficiency and effectiveness" with particular focus on investigating all complaints about the
service provided by the SPSO, including interviews with the people who have submitted these complaints
4. Send Audit Scotland a copy of your complaint to the SPSO (from step 2.) and ask them to perform an audit
into "economy, efficiency and effectiveness" of the SPSO. Send you SPSO complaint letters to Mr Robert
Black, Auditor General, Audit Scotland, 110 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4LH
5. Lastly all dissatisfied members of the public should consider documenting the problems they have
experienced with the SPSO by submitting them to the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee in the
form of a petiton so that there is a permanent record of their complaint which cannot be ignored by the
Scottish Parliament. Mr Whittet submitted the first public petition PE1076 Link in late 2007 documenting the
problems he experienced when he complained to the SPSO. If the petitions committee get lots of petitions
concerning the operation of the SPSO then eventually the Scottish Parliament will not be able to ignore the
miscarriages of administrative justice that the public have suffered at the hands of the Scottish Public
Services Ombudsman (SP{SO). Use this Public Petitions Guidance LINK to go to the web site which gives
information on how to submit a public petition.
If everyone complains about the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso), then eventually the ground
swell of dissatisfaction will be heard by the MSPs and Audit Scotland will be required to audit the spso to
confirm if Professor Brown is providing the quasi-judicial service she claims she is. It is also hoped that the
MSPs will revisit and revise the Act that governs the Scottish Ombudsman. The Act should be changed so
that it clearly defines what maladministration is, makes the Ombudsman report to Parliament all complaints
about the service she provides, introduce an independent appeals process overseen by the Lord Advocate
and give the MSPs the power to question the Scottish Ombudsman about individual complaints. The
Scottish Ombudsman must be made more accountable to the Scottish Parliament and public.
I would like to thank all the members of the public who have taken the advice detailed above and complained
to the SPSO and then to the MSPs.
This strategy appears to be working. The MSPs have started to voice concerns about how the Ombudsman
operates and the rising level of dissatisfaction being expressed by members of the public. The MSPs first
raised concerns during the debate to re-appoint Professor Brown on the 28th March 2007 then again during
the Crerar report debate on the 3rd October 2007 and most recently at the Public Petitions Committee debate
into PE1076 on the 4th December 2007 . The issues raised by the MSPs in Parliament are detailed below:
Unfortunately my experience of complaining to the Scottish Ombudsman has been that they are there to protect the
authorities from all valid and irrefutable complaints of maladministration.
The spso refused to accept any evidence which proved maladministration.
The spso claimed they could not question anything the authorities did or said even if it completely
contradicted the laws and guidelines of this land.
The concept that the Ombudsman provides an independent, impartial and transparent quasi-judicial complaints service
to the public is right. The problem however is the way the current Ombudsman rejects valid and irrefutable complaints of
maladministration with impunity.
In my case the spso gave the impression that they were investigating my complaint, then after three years of
“investigations”, they rejected my complaint as they never “formally” accepted the complaint in the first place.
After 3 years, my complaint just became one of the many complaints that were deemed not valid.
Each year the spso determine that 80+% of complaints submitted are not valid. So if the SPSO have dealt
with your case the same way as the dealt with mine then you need to take actions now.
My complaint just became one of these statistics and was never reported to Parliament as it was not "formally
investigated".
The most unjust aspect of my complaint was that after 3 years of complaining about how my complaint had been
handled by the spso, the Scottish Ombudsman forced the Council to take the enforcement action I had originally
requested 4 years earlier. The Scottish Ombudsman ruled that the Council's failure to take the correct enforcement
action was not maladministration. Surely a 4 year delay qualifies as maladministration.......not if you are the
current Ombudsman.
The spso act makes the Ombudsman's position completely independent and unaccountable to anyone including the
Ministers and MSPs. That is why the current Ombudsman is able to treat the public the way she has. This web site
was set up purely due to the injustice of the way I had been treated by the Scottish Ombudsman and the
belief that I was probably not the only one who had been treated in this manner. I was correct that I was not
alone in my experiences of the Ombudsman service. Since setting up the site I have been contacted by a significant
number of members of the public who have received similar treatment from the Scottish Ombudsman. These
members of the public have contacted their MSPs and their level of dissatisfaction with the service being
provided by the Ombudsman is being raised in the Scottish Parliament.
My complaint pales into insignificance compared to how the Ombudsman has treated people who have complained
about poor medical care from the NHS. These people are the real victims of the current complaints handling system.
The Patior web site details their experiences with complaining to the Scottish Ombudsman and you can also get a
flavour of the levels of dissatisfaction with the Ombudsman from the comments posted on the Scotsman and Herald
newspaper web sites (links to Scotsman and Herald articles can be found on this web page at the end of the MSPs
comments sections)
The spso are the Guardians of the complaints system in Scotland. They tell everyone how to run a model
complaints system.
One interesting fact about the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is they do not accept any complaints about
their own performance, do not formally investigate these complaints and do not report these complaints
publicly or to the Scottish Parliament.
How can an organisation tell someone how to run a model complaints system when they do not accept any
complaints or opportunities to improve themselves?
Why does the Scottish Parliament allow this situation to exist?
The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has now been in operation for 5 years. In these 5 years the SPSO has only
ever been subjected to an annual financial audit from Audit Scotland. No other audits have ever been performed to
determine if the current Ombudsman is providing the service to the public that the Parliament envisaged or the quasi
judicial service that Professor Brown claims she is providing.
The Ministers and MSPs cannot question or hold the Scottish Ombudsman to account. The only action the Ministers and
MSPs can take is to ask Audit Scotland to perform an "economy, efficiency and effectiveness examination
audit" with particular focus on investigating all complaints about the service provided by the SPSO including
interviews with the people who have submitted these complaints (The spso do not accept that anyone complains about
their decisions see web page "SPSO in denial"!).
There are thousands of members of the public who have suffered a miscarriage of administrative justice at
the hands of the SPSO over the last five years of it’s existence. If you are one of them then join the campaign
to get the Scottish Parliament to change the way the current SPSO operates by following the steps detailed
below:
The important message from this website is:
1. the public should continue to submit complaints about the authorities to the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman (spso)
2. if the Ombudsman rejects a valid complaint, then the public should complain about how their complaint
has been handled, firstly to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. See web page "defamation" as
regards to the protection from defamation afforded by the Act of Parliament when complaining to the
Scottish Ombudsman. Once you have documented your complaint about the service provided by the
Scottish Ombudsman and sent it to the SPSO, you can simply copy this complaint to the MSPs and then
refer to it.
3. complain to your constituency MSP, your seven regional MSPs (use this link to find your regional MSPs),
John Swinney MSP Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mr Alex Ferguson MSP Presiding Officer for the Scottish
Parliament, and Mr Mike Pringle MSP who is responsible for the Ombudsman. When complaining to the
MSPs you should also ask the MSPs and Ministers to initiate an Audit Scotland examination audit into
"economy, efficiency and effectiveness" with particular focus on investigating all complaints about the
service provided by the SPSO, including interviews with the people who have submitted these complaints
4. Send Audit Scotland a copy of your complaint to the SPSO (from step 2.) and ask them to perform an audit
into "economy, efficiency and effectiveness" of the SPSO. Send you SPSO complaint letters to Mr Robert
Black, Auditor General, Audit Scotland, 110 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4LH
5. Lastly all dissatisfied members of the public should consider documenting the problems they have
experienced with the SPSO by submitting them to the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee in the
form of a petiton so that there is a permanent record of their complaint which cannot be ignored by the
Scottish Parliament. Mr Whittet submitted the first public petition PE1076 Link in late 2007 documenting the
problems he experienced when he complained to the SPSO. If the petitions committee get lots of petitions
concerning the operation of the SPSO then eventually the Scottish Parliament will not be able to ignore the
miscarriages of administrative justice that the public have suffered at the hands of the Scottish Public
Services Ombudsman (SP{SO). Use this Public Petitions Guidance LINK to go to the web site which gives
information on how to submit a public petition.
If everyone complains about the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso), then eventually the ground
swell of dissatisfaction will be heard by the MSPs and Audit Scotland will be required to audit the spso to
confirm if Professor Brown is providing the quasi-judicial service she claims she is. It is also hoped that the
MSPs will revisit and revise the Act that governs the Scottish Ombudsman. The Act should be changed so
that it clearly defines what maladministration is, makes the Ombudsman report to Parliament all complaints
about the service she provides, introduce an independent appeals process overseen by the Lord Advocate
and give the MSPs the power to question the Scottish Ombudsman about individual complaints. The
Scottish Ombudsman must be made more accountable to the Scottish Parliament and public.
I would like to thank all the members of the public who have taken the advice detailed above and complained
to the SPSO and then to the MSPs.
This strategy appears to be working. The MSPs have started to voice concerns about how the Ombudsman
operates and the rising level of dissatisfaction being expressed by members of the public. The MSPs first
raised concerns during the debate to re-appoint Professor Brown on the 28th March 2007 then again during
the Crerar report debate on the 3rd October 2007 and most recently at the Public Petitions Committee debate
into PE1076 on the 4th December 2007 . The issues raised by the MSPs in Parliament are detailed below:
1. Excessive time taken to deal with complaint
2. SPSO did not investigate properly / look into fully
3. Total disgrace / would never use again / complete waste of time / incompetent
4. Investigation was biased / public have no chance / never on complainants side
5. SPSO was no help / not interested / favoured the Council / there to fool the public
6. Very poor service / service badly structured
7. Staff not knowledgeable / unqualified
8. Stop avoiding / ignoring complaints / questions / issues
9. Nothing happened / no outcome / still no explanation
10. Waste of public funding
11. SPSO did nothing / did not take on the case
12. Complaints not dealt with / unfairly dealt with
13. Very poor / weak reasons for not investigating / dismissed without adequate explanation
14. SPSO afraid to deal with Council / will not take on Council / Council always wins
15. Not helpful / unhelpful / no support given
16. Investigation poor / fragmented / spasmodic
17. Decision based on Council’s say
18. SPSO exists only as a pretence / there is no complaint rights
The above comments were published by the SPSO and show how the public view their
service.
It is hoped that eventually the public’s complaints about the way the SPSO is protecting the authorities from
valid and irrefutable complaints of maladministration will increase to a level where they are recognised by
the people and organisations that have the responsibility for managing the SPSO (Presiding Officer, Scottish
Parliamentary Corporate body, Finance Committee, Public Petitions Committee ref PE1076) and action taken
to improve accountability and effectiveness of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
With all the evidence that now exists to show how badly the public are being served by the Scottish Public
Services Ombudsman, it would now be an appropriate time for the Scottish Parliament to ask Audit Scotland
to perform an "economy, efficiency and effectiveness” audit of the SPSO to identify what has gone wrong
with this publicly funded body. This action was identified by Rhoda Grant MSP at the 4th December 2007
meeting to consider public petition PE1076 but unfortunately was not followed up the Scottish Parliament
Public Petitions Committee.
There are thousands of members of the public who have suffered a miscarriage of administrative justice at
the hands of the SPSO over the last five years of it’s existence.
The way the SPSO is handling the public’s complaints is a national disgrace and the public need to unite in
the campaign to push for change to get a more accountable and effective Ombudsman service.
This site shows you what is wrong with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and how to take effective
action to make the SPSO more accountable.
As a past complainant to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso), I wish to make it easier for new
complainants to the Scottish Ombudsman to access information which will assist them to understand what
constitutes a valid complaint and to ensure that the complaint is dealt with properly. All information
contained in this web site is either a direct quote or taken from information supplied by the Scottish Public
Services Ombudsman (spso), Scottish Parliament, Acts of Parliament or the Scottish Executive.
When making a complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso) it is important that the
complainant understands the role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso), the Act of Parliament
that governs the spso and the provisions made to protect the complainant from defamation, what
constitutes "Maladministration" and how to submit a complaint. Your complaint can be strengthened by
using the knowledge contained within this web site.
2. SPSO did not investigate properly / look into fully
3. Total disgrace / would never use again / complete waste of time / incompetent
4. Investigation was biased / public have no chance / never on complainants side
5. SPSO was no help / not interested / favoured the Council / there to fool the public
6. Very poor service / service badly structured
7. Staff not knowledgeable / unqualified
8. Stop avoiding / ignoring complaints / questions / issues
9. Nothing happened / no outcome / still no explanation
10. Waste of public funding
11. SPSO did nothing / did not take on the case
12. Complaints not dealt with / unfairly dealt with
13. Very poor / weak reasons for not investigating / dismissed without adequate explanation
14. SPSO afraid to deal with Council / will not take on Council / Council always wins
15. Not helpful / unhelpful / no support given
16. Investigation poor / fragmented / spasmodic
17. Decision based on Council’s say
18. SPSO exists only as a pretence / there is no complaint rights
The above comments were published by the SPSO and show how the public view their
service.
It is hoped that eventually the public’s complaints about the way the SPSO is protecting the authorities from
valid and irrefutable complaints of maladministration will increase to a level where they are recognised by
the people and organisations that have the responsibility for managing the SPSO (Presiding Officer, Scottish
Parliamentary Corporate body, Finance Committee, Public Petitions Committee ref PE1076) and action taken
to improve accountability and effectiveness of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
With all the evidence that now exists to show how badly the public are being served by the Scottish Public
Services Ombudsman, it would now be an appropriate time for the Scottish Parliament to ask Audit Scotland
to perform an "economy, efficiency and effectiveness” audit of the SPSO to identify what has gone wrong
with this publicly funded body. This action was identified by Rhoda Grant MSP at the 4th December 2007
meeting to consider public petition PE1076 but unfortunately was not followed up the Scottish Parliament
Public Petitions Committee.
There are thousands of members of the public who have suffered a miscarriage of administrative justice at
the hands of the SPSO over the last five years of it’s existence.
The way the SPSO is handling the public’s complaints is a national disgrace and the public need to unite in
the campaign to push for change to get a more accountable and effective Ombudsman service.
This site shows you what is wrong with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and how to take effective
action to make the SPSO more accountable.
As a past complainant to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso), I wish to make it easier for new
complainants to the Scottish Ombudsman to access information which will assist them to understand what
constitutes a valid complaint and to ensure that the complaint is dealt with properly. All information
contained in this web site is either a direct quote or taken from information supplied by the Scottish Public
Services Ombudsman (spso), Scottish Parliament, Acts of Parliament or the Scottish Executive.
When making a complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso) it is important that the
complainant understands the role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso), the Act of Parliament
that governs the spso and the provisions made to protect the complainant from defamation, what
constitutes "Maladministration" and how to submit a complaint. Your complaint can be strengthened by
using the knowledge contained within this web site.
Please support the new Scottish Parliament
Public Petition to ask Audit Scotland to audit
the SPSO and YOU can help to make the
SPSO more accountable and effective.
Click here to sign the petition (link)
Public Petition to ask Audit Scotland to audit
the SPSO and YOU can help to make the
SPSO more accountable and effective.
Click here to sign the petition (link)