Thursday 11 November 2010

Evidence-2

[Personal data],

Officeholder Services,
The Scottish Parliament,
Edinburgh. EH99 1SP 
By email: [personal data]
            30/9/2010
Dear [personal data],
RE: Reservations on Mr. Jim Martin reappointment as an Ombudsman for an additional six years.
I understand that members of the public have the opportunity to record their reservations on Mr. Martin’s reappointment during the current time. I have submitted a petition to the Scottish Parliament with Number 398 that outlines several reservations on the ongoing failure of the SPSO to deliver a user-satisfactory service from the time of its establishment up to its date and even deteriorating under Mr. Martin. This makes the SPSO current operation ineffective and inefficient i.e. does not represent the public interest from this public expenditure as confirmed by another 8 petitions submitted at the same time and presented to PPC in Sept/2010 meeting. The current operation of the SPSO leaves members of the public suffering complete service failure and sustained hardship in various Scottish Public Services with no access to a quasi-judicial process as assumed to serve the public interest from this public expenditure.
Here I outline a unique incident that can never be acceptable at any Ombudsman office; hence should be adequately considered in Mr. Martin’s reappointment. On 29/4/2010 I have submitted a new complaint to the SPSO that outlines a service failure and extended sustained hardship I have faced (attached to my letter). The SPSO up to its date has been ignoring my submission. I have received the automated acknowledgement for my online submission (appendix 5 – page 8), but the SPSO has rejected to disclose the assigned reference number for my complaint and further process it.
Since 29/4/2010 up to its date I have addressed several inquiries about my complaint, the SPSO repeatedly ignored my complaint and did not clarify where my complaint has been filed and what stage this complaint is being at. I should note that I have requested my old complaint file and my new complaint was not filed in the same old file. The SPSO has responded that my “correspondence” for 29/4 was not considered as new complaint. In all my further emails about my new submission I was not referring to a correspondence but rather a new complaint submission through the online tool. The SPSO neither has the power to prevent any member of the public to submit complaints nor ignore any complaint that was submitted to the SPSO attention. The SPSO, however, has the power to make discretionary judgment on further management of various submitted complaint i.e. investigating complaints.  To confirm my statement, the SPSO counts in their annual statistics inquiries as complaints. This underscores not a single submission to the SPSO can be ignored. I have earlier in 2009 submitted a complaint to the SPSO which was closed for the possibility of local resolution. The fact that this resolution proved to be impossible and I continued to suffer service failure and sustained hardship should reserve my statutory right for the full considerations of the SPSO.
I have submitted a stage one service delivery according to the SPSO procedure on 20/8/2010 (appendix 1 - page 4) regarding a statement made by the Director of Corporate service at the SPSO that my complaint submission was not considered as a new complaint as this was the first time to hear such unacceptable remark which I considered infringement to my statutory right. I should note that the SPSO has no power in line with service delivery and freedom of information requests to make decisions on complaint considerations. To make a decision on complaint consideration there should be a mechanism within the SPSO to do so. This should start by disclosing the automatically assigned reference number and considering the eligibility of the complaint for investigations according to the SPSOA.
I have received a response from Mr Martin dated 30/8/2010, which is in appendix 2 – page 5 -, that failed to deal with my service delivery complaint. I considered his response a stage one service delivery as the SPSO policy in complaint procedure is to have the manager of the involved person acting on the submitted service delivery complaint. Therefore, I have made stage-two service delivery on 1/9/2010 to the Director of Corporate service according the SPSO procedure (appendix 3- page 6). This process highlights another failure at the SPSO service delivery complaint. How a subordinate will consider a complaint after her superior do? (in this case the Ombudsman is her manager who should look into the service delivery complaint before she does, or this implies the managers are not covered by typical service delivery procedure of two stage process!) If the SPSO is unable to design appropriate internal service delivery to investigate members of the public dissatisfaction at the SPSO, how the SPSO will be able to examine other public bodies’ complaint procedures?
The SPSO failed to acknowledge my service delivery complaint stage two and respond within 20 working days (it was due on the 28/9) which confirms the failure of the SPSO to act on their internal complaint procedure). An organization which is unable to police itself is unable to police any other public body. I should note the new complaint handling which the SPSO proposes, outline possible changes in the complaint process in other public bodies (despite I do have several reservations on his proposition) but it does not involve any changes in the SPSO itself, which means continuation of the known very poor performance at the SPSO. I doubt that the complaint handling model will bring any improvement for complaint handling at notable level because the SPSO reject to investigate the majority of submitted complaint which leaves the complaint process at various public service unsupervised, which invites for all types of maladministration.
The LGO report to review a case at the SPSO confirmed the reviewed case was the worst case he has seen at any Ombudsman office. I believe the failure which is demonstrated in the listed case here, which was under Mr Martin, would be worse than any imagination to occur at any Ombudsman office. It is extremely inappropriate for an Ombudsman to ignore a complaint submitted for his attention. I consider myself a model for how Mr Martin will deal with all complaints submitted to his end. I believe it is in the public interest to have in office an Ombudsman who will never ignore a single complaint submitted to his attention.
I would like to refer you to all other failures at the SPSO in the submitted petition to the Parliament with number 398.[1]
Finally, my experience at the SPSO added an additional painful layer of service failure and sustained hardship besides to what I have been suffering at the University of Edinburgh. Certainly my entire experience was under Mr Martin’s operation which should be considered a mere model for his management to complaints submitted to his attention. The idea that members of the public will have their complaints ignored for the coming six years and continue to suffer with no access to complaint process according to the SPSOA - similar to my experience, should Mr Martin to be reappointed, is an extremely scary idea which I urge you to adequately consider while evaluating his reappointment for the Ombudsman position. I anticipate your full considerations for the public interest to seat an Ombudsman who will not block the complaint pathway in front of members of the public. I have attached my original complaint against the University of Edinburgh to illustrate for you the magnitude of service failure I have been suffering, which Mr. Martin has been ignoring up to its date i.e. infringing the public statutory right to have fair and proper complaint procedure at the SPSO. Then, how he can serve the public who he is infringing their statutory rights?
Yours Sincerely,
                          Dr. R. A. Rahman

Appendix
Appendix-1: Stage one service deliver to the SPSO about the inappropriate comment from the Director of Corporate service which was out of context and capacity of the underlying procedure.

·         Service Delivery complaint Ref: complaint against the University of Edinburgh submitted on 29/4/2010‏
http://sn123w.snt123.mail.live.com/mail/clear.gif
20/08/2010
From:
[personal data]
Sent:
20 August 2010 23:40:26
To:
SPSO (ask@spso.org.uk)
Dear [personal data],

I am making a service delivery complaint about a statement you mentioned in your response to my FOI ref.:201001701. I should note that I have passed to the information commissioner by the the points of my reservations on the information you provided.

In your response you mentioned that my new complaint as submitted on 29/4/2010 is not a new complaint and this was the first time to hear inappropriate remark as this one. The SPSO has no power to ignore any submission made to its end by members of the public. The SPSO has the power the make discretionary judgement to investigate a complaint or not in light of the SPSOA that should be adequately explained and conveyed to me. This should start by disclosing the assigned reference number and assigning my complaint to investigator to examine its eligibility in line with SPSOA.  This can never be done in the capacity of freedom of information requests or service delivery complaint, hence you do not have power to decline investigating my complaint in such process. 

The fact that I have submitted a complaint to the SPSO in 2009 which was closed for the possibility of local resolution should not diminish my statutory right to submit further complaint(s) if suffering service failure and/or sustained hardship. The SPSO counts requests for advice and complaints out of jurisdiction in the annual statistics and various freedom of information requests as NEW complaints, which underscore not a single submission to the SPSO can be ignored or considered not a complaint. Your statement is a frank infringement to the statutory right to submit complaints to the SPSO which mandates an apology. The SPSO cannot prevent me to submit a complaint to its end because I have once submitted a complaint which was closed for the possibility of local resolution that proved to be impossible. 

In my latest service delivery complaint I have noted some of my correspondences about my new complaint is being mistakenly added to my old complaint with reference number 200900986 which is closed and inappropriate to add those correspondences to. I request to be informed where my submission for 29/4/2010 on 14.52 PM is being filed at the SPSO and the reference number of this file. These are personal information which I have the right to know its location within the SPSO. Please note my older complaint was CLOSED and I have statutory right to make complaint that should be fully considered at the SPSO if suffering service failure and sustained hardship and the SPSO has no right to ignore my submission by any means. The SPSO has no right to prevent any members of the public to submit new complaints or ignore such submission by any means.

Please acknowledge my service delivery complaint within three working days and address all my reservations and questions about the Service I am receiving at the SPSO within 20 working days.

Yours Sincerely,
                       Dr. R. A. Rahman

Appendix-2: Response from the Ombudsman which ignored my original complaint and used the same vague statement that my “correspondence” is not a complaint, while I am complaining about my complaint submission not any correspondences. Please note he is using an old reference number which is the subject of my question.
30 August 2010
CONFIDENTIAL
[Personal Data]
Our ref: 200900986
Dear Ms Rahman
I refer to your email of 20 August where you state that you wish to make a service delivery complaint about Niki Maclean's response to your FOI request (ref 201001701). Your email has been passed to me for assessment.
Having carefully read your email I can not identify a complaint about the service provided by Ms Maclean, but a repeat of matters relating to the decision taken on your case which have been raised in previous correspondence and fully addressed by this office.
I remind you that in my letter of 24 August I made clear that should you continue to contact this office regarding matters previously addressed, we will no longer respond and will apply the Unacceptable Actions Policy.
Yours sincerely
Jim Martin
Ombudsman

Appendix-3: My stage-two service delivery which the SPSO failed to address despite more than 20 working days have elapsed i.e. failure at the SPSO to deal with its own complaint procedure which makes the SPSO unable to examine complaint against other public bodies while suffering internal failure in complaint procedure.

Stage Two Service Delivery complaint - Ref: Submission against the University of Edinburgh 29/4/2010 14.52 PM‏
http://sn123w.snt123.mail.live.com/mail/clear.gif01/09/2010
From:
[personal data] http://sn123w.snt123.mail.live.com/mail/clear.gif
Sent:
01 September 2010 01:23:29
To:
SPSO (ask@spso.org.uk)

1 attachment
View 200900986...doc online
http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w4/m3/ltr/liveview_download_dark.pngDownload(31.0 KB)
Dear [personal data],

I have received the response from your manager as in stage one service delivery complaint dated 30/Aug/2010, while remained unsatisfied by his response for reasons I will list some of them below. Therefore, I am proceeding to stage two service delivery complaint, according to the procedure at the SPSO for Service Delivery.

I find Mr. Martin’s response did not address my service delivery complaint for 20/8/2010 and continued the administrative error to add my correspondences about my new submission to the SPSO on 29/4/2010 14.52 PM to the old and closed complaint. I request my stage two service delivery complaint to be filed in the same file whereas my new complaint submission is being stored at the SPSO while assigning the same reference number for this file to my stage two service delivery complaint.

There were two clear errors in the response of stage-one service delivery complaint:

1- The reference number was for that of the old complaint and this was closed and I do not intend to correspond about closed complaint. The same reference number for my new submission should be assigned to this correspondence.

2- The Address was the old address while I have provided a new updated address to the SPSO.
3- The letter mentioned a letter sent to me on 24/August, while I never received such a letter and unaware by its contents.

I should note that I have received a letter from the SPSO on 11/August on my current address in addition to the DPA disclosure. Therefore, I cannot explain or understand the reasons of the error in my address.

I am not challenging any decision and this is a mere service delivery complaint that I am unsatisfied by its stage one service delivery at the SPSO, hence proceeding to stage according to the SPSO regulations. Please address my clear complaint as below besides the noted points above in this capacity.

It is very clear that stage one complaint at the SPSO failed to address my service delivery complaint. Therefore, please acknowledge my stage two service delivery complaint within three working days and respond within 20 working days.

Yours Sincerely,
                      R. Rahman

Appendix-4: A letter from the Ombudsman to threaten me to apply unacceptable action while I am merely a member of the public who has statutory right at the SPSO to receive full attention for my submitted complaint due to the complete service failure I have faced at the University of Edinburgh. Unfortunately I am suffering sustained hardship at the SPSO and service failure at the SPSO besides my original problem!

24 August 2010

CONFIDENTIAL
[personal data]





Our ref: 200900986


Dear Ms Rahman

I refer to your recent email contact with this office and in particular your complaint to Mrs Niki Maclean, Director of Corporate Service. 

I have reviewed your case correspondence and I am satisfied that several members of SPSO staff, including Mrs Maclean have taken a considerable amount of time to address the issues your raised relating to your complaint and her responses sent on 18 and 25 June clearly set out the position of this office. Mrs Maclean has also reiterated Steve Carney’s, position that the SPSO would not be accepting your correspondence of 29 April as a new complaint.

I wish to make clear that whatever your dissatisfaction with our decision on your complaint, it is not acceptable to continue to correspond with this office on matters which have received a full and final decision.  I must now advise you that in the event that you continue to contact this office regarding matters previously addressed, we will not respond and will apply our Unacceptable Actions Policy which will restrict any further contact with this office. I enclose a copy of this policy.

Should you wish to raise a service delivery complaint about Mrs Maclean, in line with our process, then this should be sent in writing for my attention.  I enclose a copy of our service delivery leaflet setting out the grounds on which a complaint will be considered.

Yours sincerely




Jim Martin
Ombudsman

Appendix-5:  Acknowledgement of my complaint which the SPSO is ignoring up to its date despite my repeated attempts to attract their attention.

·         Complaint Form Confirmation‏
29/04/2010

From:
SPSO (complaints@spso.org.uk) 
Sent:
29 April 2010 14:52:15
To:
[personal data]

1 attachment
View Rehab Abd...doc online
 (448.5 KB)
Thank you for your complaint.

This complaint is being made by:
===============================================================================
Title: Dr
Name: R. Rahman
[personal data]
Requirements
===============================================================================

Have you completed the formal complaints procedure of the organization? Yes
Are you complaining about a public body? Yes
Are you complaining about something you have been aware of for less than 12 months? Yes
Has this matter been considered in Court or do you plan to raise the matter in Court? No

Which organization are you complaining about?
===============================================================================

The University of Edinburgh


Have you complained to the organisation involved?
===============================================================================

Yes

What are you complaining about?
===============================================================================

[personal data]

How have you suffered as a result?
===============================================================================
Sustained hardship and complete service failure which led to vehement adverse
effects on my career and future perspectives as failed to accomplish my degree
and passed sever distressful situations unsupported. I have experienced
repeated lack of access to my statutory rights.


What do you want the Ombudsman to do?
===============================================================================

Administrative review to all the points I detailed and apology for what will be confirmed as maladministration. Further management to the outcome is requested to be addressed in light with the SPSO regulating acts while clarifying to me options and choices, whenever applies, before making decisions regarding such options. Any statement from the University regarding resolution should be adequately substantiated and acceptable from my side before the SPSO makes any decision based on this. 

Evidence-1

Information Commissioner
21/10/2010
Dear Information Commissioner,

Update on application REF: 201001657 against the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman

 

Background:

On 13/10 [personal data] has advised me that the SPSO has confirmed all the complaints they have records for which are the subject of this application have been disclosed. Here, I provide further evidence about inaccuracies in the SPSO disclosure of information; hence confirm my deep will to progress for a decision by the Information Commissioner.

 

In the SPSO response for review on 18/8/2010 the SPSO confirmed that contradiction on the number released in two different Freedom of Information requests is due to different submission methods (response is appended for easy reference). On 25/6/2010 the SPSO advised me that the following numbers of complaints were submitted (in Freedom of information request with reference number: 201001087):


14 complaints were received on 28 April 2010
14 complaints were received on 29 April 2010
17 complaints were received on 30 April 2010

In my request of review the SPSO provided an additional table. While counting the number of complaints in those two tables the numbers submitted on those three days are:
14 complaints were received on 28 April 2010
16 complaints were received on 29 April 2010
17 complaints were received on 30 April 2010

While summing up the number of complaints in the two tables, this provides extra two complaints. Therefore, I have assumed two complaints are included in the second table for the day of 29/4/2010. While the SPSO has confirmed to the Information Commissioner these are different complaints, then there is clear inconsistency in the count of complaints submitted in this particular day. The SPSO disclosed extra two complaints than what was listed in the disclosure with reference number 201001087 (Please refer to the SPSO response of review to document the number inconsistency). Since, the SPSO did not clarify an error happened in the first disclosure and apologized about such an error, I assume an error happened in the second disclosure with failure to disclose details of two complaints or both disclosures are wrong; hence I require an accurate disclosure about complaints listed in those two tables.

I should note that I was advised that other matters related to this application will be dealt separately under reference number: 201001947. In the indicated application the SPSO rejected to provide me the reference number and public body authority which each complaint was filed against and I detailed my appeal for the Information commissioner while requesting a decision.

 

Request from the Information Commissioner in the current application:

1-      Investigating the clear inconsistency in the SPSO disclosure of the submitted complaints numbers on the defined days as provided by two different Freedom of information responses - as documented in the response of review and appended below for the easy reference. It is impossible to have 14 and 16 complaints as valid number submitted in 29/4/2010. This means one of them is wrong or both numbers are wrong and the actual count is another number in those days. I request disclosing tables with accurate information based on the Information Commissioner investigation.

 

2-      According to the guidelines of the UK Information Commissioner regarding exemptions from all restrictions under the Data Protection Act, any data should be disclosed to the Information Commissioner to enable him making decisions without consent. While I am waiting for the Information Commissioner’s decision on the inappropriate position of the SPSO to provide the reference number and public body by inapplicable restriction under the Data Protection Act that I claim, it is appropriate to request providing the indicated information to the Information Commissioner to enable him making a decision in the current application independent from the other application you decided to handle separately(instead of waiting for a decision on the other application to provide the required evidence for the current application).

 

Therefore, I request that the SPSO releases the reference number for the provided two tables for the Information Commissioner to verify:

a-      The provided reference number is serial in the provided two tables and there is no missing serial in the assigned reference number which would confirm failure of the SPSO to disclose information related to this complaint.

b-     The reference number for the first table where time was indicated is coordinating with time provided. In other words, for example, in 29/4/2010 the complaint submitted at 21:04 should have reference number that is further to the one submitted at 15.36. I request that the Information Commissioner request the time of submission in the second table to verify the assigned reference number is serial according to the time of submission as part of verifying my application on inaccurate information provided by the SPSO.

 

I request to have the final word before the information Commissioner makes his decision to have the reasonable opportunity to address the SPSO response regarding my application.

 

Yours Sincerely,

                          Dr. R. A. Rahman

Appendix
The SPSO response of review for easy reference (provided in the original application)
Subject: RE: Request for review for FOI 201001269
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:59:30 +0100
From: Ask@spso.org.uk
To: [personal data]
Dear [personal data]

Your request for review reference 201001701

I refer to your emails of 29 July and 3 August 2010, which have been passed to me to consider and I can now respond as follows.

On 26 May you asked for the number of complaints individually submitted on 28, 29 and 30 April 2010, while clearly indicating the time and date for the first and last complaints to be submitted online after and before your online complaint submission respectively.  You were advised on 25 June under reference 201001087 that:

14 complaints were received on 28 April 2010
14 complaints were received on 29 April 2010
17 complaints were received on 30 April 2010

The last online complaint form submitted before your submission was on 25 April 2010 at 18:01
The first online complaint form submitted after your submission was on 29 April 2010 at 15:37

In emails of 30 June and 1 July, you asked for the reference number of all the complaints which were submitted to the SPSO using the online complaint form during the period 19 April to 15 May 2010, while clearly indicating a) the exact time each one of them was submitted, and b) the public service bodies those complaints were made against.  You also requested that we disclose at what stage each complaint had arrived at the time of our response.  You were provided, on 29 July under reference 201001269, with a table detailing complaints initially received online from 19 April to 15 May 2010 and given an explanation why we were unable to provided the specific complaint details, on which point you have not requested a review.

First, I apologise for the incorrect date in the table provided, as you correctly identified, the date should have read 29/04/10.  Please find below a corrected table.

Received Date
Received Time
Workflow Stage
Case Status
Case Closure Reason
16/04/10
14:03
3 - Early Resolution 2
Closed
Premature
21/04/10
00:35
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Premature
24/04/10
20:55
4 - Investigation 1
Open

24/04/10
09:50
3 - Early Resolution 2
Closed
Premature
25/04/10
18:01
3 - Early Resolution 2
Open

29/04/10
15:36
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Premature
29/04/10
21:04
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Out of jurisdiction
30/04/10
16:33
3 - Early Resolution 2
Open

01/05/10
14:56
3 - Early Resolution 2
Open

03/05/10
16:09
3 - Early Resolution 2
Open

05/05/10
15:29
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Premature
05/05/10
18:51
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Out of jurisdiction
07/05/10
16:31
4 - Investigation 1
Open

10/05/10
14:02
4 - Investigation 1
Open

12/05/10
14:48
3 - Early Resolution 2
Open

12/05/10
14:44
1 - Advice
Closed
Discontinued
Report generated 28 July 2010

However, you have requested a review of the information you have been provided as you consider that, as the indicated number of complaints detailed under 201001269 is less than the number defined under 201001087, there is a clear error.  I would point out that under 201001087 you asked for and were provided with the number of complaints submitted, whereas, under 201001269, you asked for and were provided with details of the number of complaints that were submitted using the online complaint form.  It is therefore reasonable to expect that the number of complaints submitted using the online complaint form will be less than the total number of complaints submitted. 

You have also questioned why your online submission of 29 April at 14:52 was clearly indicated under 201001087 but not under 201001269.  I would point out that, under 201001087, you were provided with details of the online complaint forms submitted directly before and after your online submission.  This was not however confirmation that your online submission was consequently progressed and recorded as a new complaint.  However, the details provided under 201001269 were specifically for those recorded complaints that were originally submitted online.  As you have been previously advised on a number of occasions, your online complaint submission was not considered to be a new complaint, therefore it was not allocated a new reference number and consequently does not show up in the list of complaints provided under 201001269.

You have requested details of the complaints indicated under 201001087.  Please see the table below.

Received Date
Contact Method
Workflow Stage
Case Status
Case Closure Reason
30/04/2010
Telephone
2 - Early Resolution 1
Open


Letter
4 - Investigation 1
Open


Email
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Letter
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Complaint resolved

Telephone
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Out of Jurisdiction

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Discontinued

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Discontinued

Telephone
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Out of Jurisdiction

Letter
3 - Early Resolution 2
Closed
Out of Jurisdiction

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Web Complaint Form
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Premature

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Discontinued

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Telephone
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Suspended

Web Complaint Form
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Out of Jurisdiction

Web Complaint Form
3 - Early Resolution 2
Open

29/04/2010
Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Discontinued

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Telephone
3 - Early Resolution 2
Closed
Complaint not upheld

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Discontinued

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Visit
3 - Early Resolution 2
Closed
Premature

Visit
3 - Early Resolution 2
Closed
Discontinued

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Letter
4 - Investigation 1
Closed
Discretionary decision not to pursue

Letter
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Premature
28/04/2010
Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Out of Jurisdiction

Letter
1 - Advice
Closed
Discontinued

Telephone
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Premature

Letter
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Premature

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Discontinued

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Email
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Out of Jurisdiction

Letter
4 - Investigation 1
Open


Letter
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Premature

Telephone
1 - Advice
Closed
Premature

Telephone
3 - Early Resolution 2
Closed
Complaint partly upheld

Letter
1 - Advice
Closed
Discontinued

Letter
2 - Early Resolution 1
Closed
Out of Jurisdiction
Report generated 17 August 2010

Finally, you have requested release of the reference number for your online submission of 29 April.  Again, as previously explained, your online submission was not considered to be a new complaint and was not allocated a new reference number.  In line with section 17 of FOISA, I must therefore advise that this information is not held. 

YOUR RIGHT OF APPEAL

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of any review carried out by the SPSO, you have a right under FOISA to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner.  If you wish to do so, you must appeal to the Commissioner within six months following the date of receipt of the review notice.  The Commissioner’s contact details are as follows:

The Scottish Information Commissioner
Kinburn Castle
Doubledykes Road
St Andrews
KY16 9DS
Tel:  01334 464610

Yours sincerely

[personal data]