Summary
Mr C complained on behalf of his mother (Mrs A) that the board did not reasonably respond to his complaint or his request for compensation.
Mrs A's belongings went missing whilst she was in hospital and searches did not locate them. Mr C complained to the board about the loss of Mrs A's belongings. The board accepted that there had been unreasonable delays in responding to the complaint and apologised for this. After contact from our office, the board accepted that they should have made much more of an effort to explain the reasons for these delays and that there was a missed opportunity to confirm to Mr C how to make a request for compensation for missing items. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint that the board had not responded reasonably to his complaints.
Mr C also submitted a request for compensation for the missing items. The board made Mr C an offer of a sum that they told him had been reached after making an appropriate reduction for wear and tear from his estimated valuation of the missing items. The board's internal communication indicated that the offer had been made as a good will gesture as they did not accept any responsibility for the loss of the items. We found that the board's communication with Mr C was confusing because it did not make clear that the offer was a good will gesture. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint that the board had not responded reasonably to his request for compensation.
Recommendations
What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to Mr C for causing confusion when responding to his request for compensation. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance .
We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201802910 as a PDF (25.18 KB) Updated: August 21, 2019