Summary
Mr C complained about the support provided to him by the partnership following his release on licence from prison. Mr C also complained about the content of a report that the partnership submitted to the Parole Board recommending his recall to prison.
We took independent advice from a social worker. We did not find evidence that the partnership's decision-making or the support provided to Mr C was unreasonable. We did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.
Mr C also complained about the way that the partnership handled his complaints. We found that the partnership did not provide a response to two of Mr C's complaints, specifically that no response was provided to an email about Mr C's complaint and that the partnership did not keep Mr C updated about the reason for the delay in responding to his complaints or provide a revised timescale for when he could expect to receive a response. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.
Recommendations
What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to Mr C for failing to respond to an email about his complaint and for failing to keep him updated about the reason for the delay in responding to his complaints and provide revised timescales for completion. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
In relation to complaints handling, we recommended: Emails from complainants should be responded to appropriately. Where an extension to complaint response timescales is necessary, this should be agreed with the complainant and they should be provided with a new timescale for when they can expect a response. This is in accordance with the Social Work Model Complaints Handling Procedure.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201707234 as a PDF (24.12 KB) Updated: June 19, 2019