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. 

No comments:

Post a Comment