Source · SPSO (Scottish Public Services Ombudsman)

Scottish Court Service

SPSO (Scottish Public Services Ombudsman) Upheld Reference 201400855 Sector Scottish Government and Devolved Administration Category complaints handling Decided 01 November 2014

Full decision

Summary

Miss C was party to legal proceedings. She complained to the Scottish Court Service (SCS) that she had not received within a reasonable timescale a copy of documents relating to the decisions taken at the proceedings. She then submitted a claim for compensation due to the consequences of the documents not being provided within a reasonable timescale. At the conclusion of this correspondence the SCS told her that her complaints had been considered under their complaints procedure. Miss C was dissatisfied with this and complained to us that the response to her complaints had not been reasonable.

Our investigation found that it was reasonable that there was some confusion about what Miss C wished the SCS to consider, given the context of her communication with them. However, because their complaints handling guidance highlighted the importance of clarifying matters with the complainant, and because Miss C had eventually made reasonably clear what she wished the SCS to consider, we upheld her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SCS: apologise to Miss C that they did not respond reasonably to her complaint; and highlight to all relevant staff the importance of clarifying the matters that a complainant wishes to be considered at all stages of the complaints handling process.

Related reading

View Decision Report 201400855 as a PDF (12.55 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

View original on SPSO (Scottish Publ… website

Other decisions involving Scottish Court Service

Reference Date Summary Outcome
201203023 01 Sep 2013 Mr C was in contact with the sheriff court about divorce proceedings. He complained to us that the court failed … Partly Upheld
201004347 01 Jul 2011 Mr C complained that funds received by the Sheriff Court, and ultimately due to him, were not placed in an … Not Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation