There are two parts to any complaint.

First is the actual complaint. This must document the following:

  • A summary in as few words as possible, certainly not more than two hundred.
  • The People and Parties involved.
  • Facts or background
  • The History of the Events - usually in a few parts ... how something happened, and then various interventions. 
  • What loss has been suffered ? This has to be quantified into money.
  • What remedial actions are required: usually this will be of a disciplinary nature, or as the Chinese put it "Re-education".

Second is the handling of the complaint. Please note the following:

  • Most BUJ's [That stands for Bodies Under [the] Jurisdiction [of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman]] have their own complaints methodology. In this case having given notice to the offending civil servant, he obviously became concerned [as well he should] and passed it to his superior who took my "notice" [that the investiagtion was neither adequate nor effective] and tried to treat it as a complaint.
  • When a council says they will treat a notice as a complaint that is fair and reasonable - as long as the person who is going to review the complaint is capable of so doing. The question is what qualifications and experience does the reviewer have to establish to the complainant his competence. In this case the question went unanswered. The immediate, and reasonable, conclusion is that he doesn't.
  • So who can you go to ? Well that depends upon what out come is wanted: if, as in this case, there is a monetary loss involved, then the council's legal department should be contacted.
  • The experience of most people with the SPSO is unsatisfactory. So forget that route.

This is the chain of communications with East Renfrewshire's Legal Department.

The emails are shown in reverse order - newest first. It is all as expected ... nice and polite and filled with sensible promises - NONE of which - to date - have been fulfilled.

So what is surpising about this situation? The sad answer is that it is just all too common. And, in most cases - but not this one - wholly infuriating to the complainant. Why not in this case ? Because this web site reports "Research into some injustices". 

As such, in the Public Interest the names of the public servants are not hidden.

This is a simple case study which demonstrates the ability of a civil servant [with a safe salary and an even safer pension] to act unreasonably causing loss and damage to others with no thought of the consequences.

It is of course extremely boring to read ... However, it clearly demonstrates that East Renfrewshire's employee exacerbated the problem with the tenant whose previous actions had already indicated her probable mental health . . . .